i'jMU 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/chicagovotingmacOOillirich 


1 


1^-tr*f<i'      aS-- 


T 


UfO^^if^^ 


Q. 


CHICAGO 

VOTING  MACHINE 

INVESTIGATION 


Report  of  the  Legislative  Committee 

Appointed  under  House  Joint  Resolution  No.  23 
of  the  Forty-eighth  Illinois  General  Assembly 


ACCOMPANIED  BY 

An  Abstract  of  Proceedings 

and 

Copies  of  Exhibits 


COMMITTEE 

REP.  LUCAS  I.  BUTTS,  Peoria,  Chairman 
SEN.  F.  C.  CAMPBELL,  Xenia,  Secretary 


SEN.  RICHARD  J.  BARR.Joliet 
SEN.  J.  M.  CHAMBERLIN,  JR.,  East  St.  Louis 
SEN.  STEPHEN  D.  CANADAY,  Hillsboro 
REP.  FERDINAND  A.GARESCHE,  Madison 
REP.  J.  H.  JAVNE,  Monmouth 


1915 


REP.  ROBERT  S.  JONES,  Flora 
REP.  R.J.  KASSERMAN,  Newton 
REP.  ED'WARD  J.  KING,  Galesburg 
SEN.  FRANK  A.  LANDEE,  Moline 
SEN.  WILLIS  R.SHAW,  Decatur 


a- 


± 


\\'^ 


%l^ 


/''''■ 


M^ 


I" 


TABr>E  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page 
Report  to  General  Assembly 3 

Index  of  Witnesses. 

Examination 

"             Direct  Cross 

Amos  Miller   1  4 

Morris   Emerson    6  7 

Isaac  N.  Powell ' 10  U 

Abel  A.  Bach 12  15 

Thomas  F.  Judge 17  None 

JohBi,  D.  Cannon 19  21 

Howard    S.   Taylor 31  157 

William  L.  Abbott 263  266 

Paul  M.  Chamberlain 271  27S 

William  Wooley  296  301 

Clarence  E.  Depuy 309  334 

George   O.   Olson 367  369 

O.  A.  Leutwiler 378  384 

Frank  Kelper  394 

Thomas  A.  Boyer 415  None 

J.  P.  Townsend 419  None 

Frank  Keiper   (resumes  stand) 421  421 

Charles  II.  Kellerman 437  468 

Anthony  Czarneckl  474 

Clarence  E.  Depuy   (resumes  staud) 507  508 

James  S.  Keeley 532  535 

Oscar  Hewitt   530  None 

E.    S.   Beck 537  None 

Charles  Gotthart  539  None 

George   E.   Brennan 549  None 

Edward    E.    Marriott 550  565 

E.   A.    Keppler 567  568 

R.  D.  Bemiss 578  580 

James  Hamlin    581  581 

R.   F.   Graham 581  581 

I-incoln  Weaver  582  582 

Berry  Lillard 582  582 

William  Anderson   583  583 

Albert  Pierce    ., 583  583 

William  J.  Hamlin 583  583 

Jacob  Gilbert   584  584 

A.   S.   Ford 584  584 

E.  H.  Ford 584  585 


ivil80434 


u 


Theodore  Thomas   '. 585  585 

Leo  Lasky   586  586 

George  T.  S.  Brown 587  587 

Charles  Bergstroiii    587  588 

John  Branlett  588  589 

James  LaGraza    589  589 

James  Duncan   589  None 

H.    B.    Meinhardt 589  590 

Anthony  Czarnecki   590  None 

Harry  E.  Hoff 591  593 

Theodore  DePalma   599  599 

Charles  Stumpff  599  599 

Lawrence  F.   King 599  None 

Michael  F.  McMahon 636  638 

J.  J.  Muldowney 639  None 

Lawrence  F.   King    (resumes  stand) 639  649 

J.  F.   Cleary 650  650 

Richard   A.    Sliields 651  651 

Slartha   E.   Abt 651  652 

Frank  Murphy   652  652 

Custer  L.   Hampton 653  654 

William  Fisher    654  654 

William  B.  Cassldy 655  655 

Lawrence  F.  King  (resumes  stand) None  656 

H.  E.  Wallace 657  None' 

Bernard  McMahon    657  658 

Carlton  R.   Dart 658  658 

W.    H.    Clark 659  None 

William  M.   Spencer 660  None 

C.   Otto   Brocker 662  None 

Herman   C.   Schultz 662  None 

Charles  D.   Boyd 664  None 

Charles   A.   Kuhn 664  665 

Frauk   Kelper    (resumes   stand) 666  None 

Susan  L.  Jenks 666  667 

Lawrence  F.  King    (resumes  stand) None  667 

Harry  E.  Hotf  (resumes  stand) None  667 

John  S.  Burns 668  None 

I,awrence  F.  King   (resumes  stand) 669  None 

Perry  Lillard  (recalled) 669  None 

William  Anderson    (recalled) 669  None 

Theodore   Thomas    (recalled) 669  None 

Leo  Lasky    (recalled) 669  None 

Bernard  J.  Mahony 670  None 

James  J.  Muldowney    (recalled) 670  071 

John  D.  Harris 671  673 


m 


Narrative  Index. 

Page 

Testimony  of  Amos  Miller 1-6 

Methods  of  examination  by  State  Commission 3 

Empire  voting  macliine  can  be  manipulated  by  judges,  clerks  and 

others 4 

Machines  were  examined  with  reference  to  primary  elections 5 

Testimony  of  Morris  Emerson 6-9 

State  Commission  approved  every  voting  machine  submitted,  except 

one 6 

Methods  of  examination 6 

Custodian  could  manipulate  Empire  voting  machine  freely 7 

•*  Voting  machines  impracticable  under  j)resent  primary  law 8 

Testimony  of  Isaac  N.  Powell 10-12 

Previous  board  finds  voting  machines  defective,  and  rejects  all 11 

Testimony  of  Abel  A.  Bach 12-17 

Examination  and  rejection  of  machines  by  previous  board 13 

Suggestions  by  previous  board  as  to  requirements  of  suitable  vot- 
ing machine   13-14 

Defects   of  Empirfe  voting  machine 15-16 

Testimony  of  Thomas  F.  Judge 17-18 

No  saving  in  use  of  voting  machines 17 

Experts  certify  machine  did  not  come  within  the  law 18 

Testimony  of  John  D.  Cannon 19-30 

Ample  time  for  bids  given  by  old  board 19 

All   bids  voluntarily  withdrawn  by  companies 19 

Rejection  of  all  machines  submitted 20 

Familiar  with  Australian  ballot 21 

Experts  advised  against  purchase 22 

Defects  of  Empire  machine  pointed  out 22 

New  Jersey  rejects  voting  machines 24 

Previous  board  confers  with  city  in  regard  to  finances 25 

Fraudulent  manipulations  of  Eniiiire  voting  machine 27 

Newspaper  men  invited  to  inspect  voting  machines 28 

Voting  machines   were   rejected   after   experimental   use 29 

Chicago  Examiner  had  advance  information  regarding  purchase  of 

voting  machines  30 

Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor 31-263 

Chief  clerk  of  Election  Connnission  ordered  to  write  to  voting  ma- 
chine  companies 31 

Concerning  voting  machine  sjiecificatlons 32 

Experimental  use  of  voting  machines 33 

Commissioner  Czarneeki  asks  for  time  to  study  specifications 35 

Concerning  minutes  of  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 36 


iv 

Limited  time  allowed  for  bids 41 

Commissioner  Ozarnecki  asks  for  time  extension 43 

Protests  of  voting  machine  companies ;  placed  on  file 44-46 

Protest  of  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 47-55 

Failure  to  confer  with  city  authorities 47 

Contrasted  action  of  previous  commission 48 

Previous  reports  point  out  defects  In   voting  machines,   and  offer 

suggestions 49-50 

Objections  to  large  initial  purchase 51 

Conference  with   city   authorities   urged 54 

Protest  of  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  placed  on  file ;  no  official  in- 
quiry made  56 

Witness'  view  of  Supreme  Court  decision 58 

Financing  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  machines 62 

Witness  makes  voting  machine  speech  at  the  City  Club 63 

Requirements  of  Voting  Macliine  Law 66 

Protest  of  Winslow  Voting  Machine   Company 68 

Protest  of  Ergy  Register  Company 71 

Protest  of  American  Voting  Machine  Company  of  Boston 73 

Protest  of  Caulkins  Voting  Machine  Company 74 

Letter  from  American  Voting  Machine  Company  of  Wooster,  Ohio.  75 

Letter  of  Eugene  Gregory 76 

Protest  of  International  Voting  Machine  Company 80 

Report  of  voting  machine  experts  to  Judge  Owens 81-87 

Commissioner  Czarneckl  moves  for  additional  test 87-88 

Commissioner  moves  to  limit  machine  purchase 89 

Commissioner  moves  to  confer  with  city  authorities 90 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moves  to  remedy  defects  before  purchasing 

machines 91 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moves  for  public  examination  of  voting  ma- 
chines    92 

Did  Election  Commission's  experts  examine  a  rejected  machine?. ...  96 

Section  18  of  specifications  not  complied  with 98 

Protest  of  L.  R.  Winslow 100 

Voting  machine  number  missing  from  report  of  Owens'  experts. .  106 

Letter  of  .\merican  Standard  Voting  Machine  Company 108 

Protest  of  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company 109 

Protest  of  International  Voting  Machine  Company Ill 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moves  to  hear  protests 113 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moves  to  limit  time  of  delivery  of  voting 

machines 114 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moves  for  deposit  by  Empire  Company..  115 

Second  report  of  Judge  Owens'  experts 118 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moves  for  sample  of  Empire  machine. . . .  119 

Taylor  resolution  for  contract  with  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  122 


Contract  with  the  Empire  Company 125 

Suggested  methods  of  payment  for  voting  machines 131 

Commissioner  Czamecki  refused  time  to  read  Empire  voting  ma- 
chine contract  131 

Commissioner  CzarneclJl  comments  on  the  voting  machine  proceed- 
ings   " 134-135 

Taylor,  resolution  for  contract  with  Empire  Company,  carried....  137 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moves  to  submit  contract  to  people 139 

Commissioner  Czamecki  and  the  voting  machine  specifications ....  144 
Commissioner   Czamecki   states   his   objections   to   voting   machine 

contract 140-147 

City  authorities  notified  after  contract  made 149 

Witness'  view  of  Supreme  Court  decision 153 

••  Report  of  Grand  Jury  of  November,  1908 160 

Witness  makes  synopsis  of  reports  of  experts  of  former  board ....  170 

Reports  of  former  experts  offered  in  evidence 174-237 

Objections  raised  in  reports  were  considered  by  witness 237-238 

Witness  knew  of  use  of  voting  machines  In  other  states 239 

Hartford,  Conn.,  report  on  voting  machines  read  by  witness 240 

New  Hampshire  and  the  voting  machine 245 

Witness'  view  of  protest  of  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 249 

Witness  thought  Czarnecki's  purpose  was  to  defeat  voting  machine 

purchase 255 

Witness  knew  Charles  A.  Walsh  of  the  Chicago  Examiner 257 

Witness  talked  with  A.  M.  Lawrence  about  voting  machines 258 

Testimony  of  William  L.  Abbott 263 

Acted  as  one  of  Judge  Owens'  experts 263 

Found  that  Empire  voting  machine  complied  with  law 263 

Ordinary  voter  cannot  vote  .split  ticket  in  one  minute 264 

The  voting  machine  and  the  primary  law 265 

Report  of  experts  pointed  out  defects  and  recommended  changes . .  266 

Witness  preferred  machine  with  party  lever 267 

Witness  favored  a  limited  number  of  Inspections  by  election  judges  268 

Testimony    of    Paul    M.    Chamberlain 271 

Acted  as  one  of  Judge  Owens'  experts 271 

Experts  concluded  Empire  machine  complied  with  law 271 

Views  of  witness  on  "minute  voting" 272 

Experts'  report  calls   attention  to  absence  of  party  lever  on  Em- 
pire machine    273 

Disadvantages  of  party  key 274 

Experts'  report  undated  and  serial  number  of  Empire  machine  ex- 
amined not  given    275 

Blue  prints 277 

Witness  knew  Mr.  Wheelock,  attorney  for  Empire  Company 279 

Witness  inspects  machines  election  day 285 

Further  expert  services  of  witness 290-294 


Testimony  of  William  Wooley 296 

Acted  as  one  of  Judge  Owens'  experts 296 

Primary  ballot  could  not  be  voted  in  a  minute 297 

Witness  cannot  remember  number  of  Empire  machine  examined 

by  experts  299 

Disadvantages  of  party  key 299 

Witness  thought  defects  shown  by  report  would  be  corrected 300 

Frauds  possible  by  custodian 300 

Thinks  machine  complies  with  law  but  cannot  be  voted  in  a  minute  307 

Testimony  of  Clarence  E.  Depuy , 309 

Previous  employment  as  expert  on  voting  machines 309 

Examines  Empire  machine  for  present  investigation 311 

Some  frauds  possible  on  Empire  machines 312 

Fraudulent  manipulation  of  machine  demonstrated 313 

The  "angle  steel"  and  the  rubber  band  frauds 314 

Secrecy  of  machine  ballot  not  secure 315 

Wrong  setting  of  counters 316 

Manipulation  of  question  lockout 317 

Duplication  of  keys 318 

Members  of  Committee  cast  experimental  votes 319 

Machine  counters  may  be  set  above  or  below  zero 321 

Otlier  frauds  possible  by  custodian 322 

Cumulative  voting  attachment 323 

Fraudulent  setting  of  attachment 324 

Cannot  be  detected  by  judges 325 

Unlawful  vote  east  on  machine  at  hearing 326 

Defective  voting  on  voting  machine 329-330 

Witness  makes  a  duplicate  voting  machine  key 331 

Advantages  of  "printing"  voting  machine 333 

Form  of  Empire  machine  an  aid  to  fraud 337 

Witness  has  never  seen  a  feasible  voting  machine 341 

Former  voting  machine  reports  of  witness  reviewed 324-346 

Empire  voting  machine  not  adapted  to  Chicago  conditions 347 

Ix)ss  of  votes  in  voting  split  ticket 351 

The  Empire  machine  and  the  law's  requirements 353 

Average  voter  cannot  vote  in  a  minute 356 

Mechanical  limit  to  group  voting 357 

Frauds  by  custodian   or  judges 360-361 

Suggested  improvements  in  voting  machines 366 

Testimony  of  George  O.  Olson 367 

Previous    examinations   of   voting   machines 367 

Frauds  possible  on  Empire  machine 368 

Favors  party  lever ;  its  advantages 369 

Reviews  former  report  on  Empire  machine 370-373 

Empire  machine  not  large  enough  for  Chicago 373 


vll 

Defects  of  Independent  paper  roll  on  Empire  machine 373 

Primary  lever  and  proposition  lockout  too  small 376 

Testimony  of  O.  A.  I^eutwiler ' 

Previous  examinations  of  voting  machines 378 

Examines  Empire  machine  for  legislative  committee 379 

Describes  frauds  possible  on  Empire  machine 380 

Failure  to  record  vote  totals ^ 

Primary  lever  too  small 

Empire  is  not  a  good  voting  machine 384 

Witness  reviews  previous  reports  on  voting  machines 384 

Defects  in  Empire  machine  pointed  out 386 

OQO 

Witness  favors  a  party  lever 

Empire  machine  can  be  set  fraudulently 389 

.      If  custodian,  witness  could  falsify  elections 390 

*    Means  of  doing  this  in  Empire  machine 391 

Difficulty  of  detection 

Empire  machine  examined  by  witness  did  not  comply  with  state 

393 

law 

Testimonv  of  Frank  Helper  (attoniey  for  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 

'  394 

pany)  

Objections  to  "printing"  machines 396 

Objections  to  party  lever 

The  party  lever  and  cumulative  voting 399 

No  advantage  in  limiting  inspections  by  judges 400 

Empire  machine  in  primary  elections 403 

Paper  zero  fraud  easily  detected 404 

Empire  machine  meets  Illinois  law 40o 

1912  primary  ballot  requires  two  machines 406 

Voting  machine  not  mentioned  in  primary  law 411-412 

Witness  helped  write  Chicago  voting  machine  contract 414 

Testimony  of  Thomas  A.  Boyer 41a 

Witness  visits  Ottumwa  and  receives  so-called  Duke  statement 415 

Witness  hands  Duke  statement  to  Mr.  Butts,  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee    ^^^ 

Testimony  of  J.  P.  Townsend ^^^ 

H.  AV  Barr  and  N.  L.  Arrison  of  Ottumwa  at  Grand  Pacific  Hotel . .  419 

Testimony    of   Frank    Keiper    (resumed) 421 

A  broken  seal  gives  chance  of  fraud 421 

Witness  knows  H.  W.  Barr,  Agent  for  Empire  Company 422 

Knows  Carl  F.  Ix)mb,  President 423 

Witness  cannot  name  Empire's  stockholders 427 

Witness  estimates  factory  cost  of  Empire  at  between  $400  and  .$500      431 
Witness  votes  in  one  minute  and  sixteen  seconds,  and  again  In  33 

seconds ■- 432-433 

Mistakes  are  made  In  experimental  voting  on  Empire  machine 434 

The  Committee  appoints  a  sub-committee  to  visit  Ottumwa,  Iowa..       4.S5 


vUl 

The  report  of  the  sub-conimittee 436 

Mr.   Frank   Walker  appears  as  personal  attorney  for  A.   M.   Law- 
rence    437 

Mr.  McEwen,  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Mr.  Walker  oppose  the  introduction 

of  the  Duke  statement 437 

Objections  are  sustained  for  the  present 437 

Testimony  of  Charles  H.  Kellermann 437 

Voting  machine  matter  first  discussed  by  Election  Commission  in 

January  or  Februarj-,  1911 438 

Witne.ss  visits  factory  of  Triumph  Voting  Machine  Company 439 

Makes  no  report  of  visit 440 

Witness  believes  Chief  Clerk  Stuart  prepared  specifications 442 

Witness  remembers  protest  of  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 443 

Witness  had  limited  knowledge  of  voting  machines 444 

Thought  voting  machines  intended  for  primaries 445 

Meeting  specifications  was  "companies'  business" 446 

Considered  25  days  ample  time  for  bids 447 

Mr.  Frank  Walker  produces  Marriott  affidavit  and  explains  his  posi- 
tion   448-452 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  asks  extension  of  time  for  bids 453 

Communicatdons  from  voting  machine  companies ;  filed 454 

Protest  of  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  received :  filed 455 

Time  of  bids  extended  eight  days 456 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  makes  motions 457 

Further  protests  received  from  voting  machine  companies ;  file:! ....  458 

Further  motions  by  Commissioner  Czahiecki 460 

No  public  examination  of  voting  machines 4<31 

Bine  print  packages  unopened 462 

One-minute  voting   requirement   Ignored 463 

Section  18  of  specifications  ignored 464 

Commissioner  Czarneekl's  motions  ignored 465 

Notice  sent  city  after  purchase  of  voting  machines 466 

Companies'  certified  checks  deposited 470 

Mr.  Wheelock,  attorney  for  Empire  Compan.v,  thought  25  days  ample 

time  for  bids 474 

Witness  learned  afterwards,   Wheelock   was  attorney  for  Empire 

Company 474 

Testimony  of  Anthony  Czarnecki 474 

Republican  and  minority  member  of  Election  Commission 474 

Witness  moves  for  changes  in  specifications ;  no  second 476 

Short  time  allowed  for  bids,  witness  asks  extension ;  no  second ....  477 

Disposition   made   by   Commission   of   protests   received 478 

Commissioner  Taylor  moves  to  purchase  1000  voting  machines....  480 

Witness  asks  for  public  exhibition 481 

Witness  certifies  that  blue  prints  were  unopened 482 


Mr.  S.  E.  Thomason  makes  a  request  In  which  Mr.  Walker  Joins. .      483 
The  Duke  statement  and  the  Marriott  alTidavit  admitted  in  evidence      484 

The  Marriott  affidavit 485 

The   Duke   statement 488 

Testimony  of  Anthony  Czarnecki   (resumed)  : 

Witness  moves  to  rescind  the  Taylor  resolution 492 

Report  of  Owens'  experts  gives  no  serial  number  of  Empire  machine 

examined 403 

Taylor  purchase  resolution  adopted 494 

Witness  afforded  no  opportunity  to  study  million-dollar  contract. .       495 

Witness'  objections  to  Empire  machine 498 

Empire  macliine  not  suited  to  Chicago 499 

"Tying  up"  of  voting  machines  in  election  contests ."00-501 

•'voting  machines  have  not  reduced  election  expenses 502 

Testimony  of  Clarence  E.  Depuy  (recalled) 503 

Experiments  on  voting  machine ",04-507 

Testimony  of  Anthony  Czarnecki  (resumed)  : 

Newspaper  articles  about  voting  machines 508-525 

Causes  of  witness'  opposition  to  voting  machine  purchase 525-530 

Grand  Jury  report  of  November,  1908,  not  read  by  Commission 531 

Testimony  of  James  S.  Keeley 532 

Only  meeting  with  H.  W.  Barr .532 

Tribune  favored  voting  machines,  but  not  voting  machine  deal 535 

Testimony  of  Oscar  Hewitt 536 

H.  W.  Barr  asked  to  be  introduced  to  Mr.  Keeley,  after  securing 

voting  machine  contract 537 

Testimony  of  E.  S.  Beck 537 

Mr.    Barr  and  Mr.   Lausterer,   of   the   Empire   Company,    visit   the 

Tribune  office  537 

Neither  knew  Mr.  Keeley 538 

Testimony  of  Charles  Gotthart 539 

Mr.  Gray,  of  Ottumwa,  contradicts  Marriott  affidavit 530 

Mr.  Arrison,  of  Ottumwa,  contradicts  Marriott  affidavit 541 

Judge  Moon,  of  Ottumwa,  contradicts  Marriott  affidavit 543 

Why  Arrison  and  Duke  avoided  Chicago 545, 547-8 

Mr.  Gray  is  paid  his  Empire  Company  money 546 

Mr.  Arrlson's  money  is  safe  in  Judge  Moon's  hands 540 

Testimony  of  George  E.  Brennan 549 

Witness  contradicts  Marriott  affidavit;  was  never  in  Ottumwa ,549-550 

Testimony  of  Edward  E.  Marriott 550 

Witness'  previous  employments 550-551 

Visits  Ottumwa   551 

Witness  contradicts  Judge  Moon's  statements 552 

Witness  fails  to  verify  statements 553-556 

Witness  misquoted,  makes  no  comment 557 


Arrison  visits  Cliicago  by  appointment  with  Walsh 559-560 

A\Tiat   witness  heard  in   Ottumwa   about   the   Dulie   statement  and 

other   matters    561-563 

AVitness  prepares  his  affidavit 564 

Witness  understood  Mckler,  Arrison  and  Gray  were  Empire  sales- 
men         565 

Testimony  of  E.  A.  Keppler '. 566 

Witness  photographs  Empire  machine  examined  by  Owens'  experts      567 

Serial  niiral)er  of  Empire  machine  under  4000 567 

Photograph  taken  after  votiijg  machine  contract  made 568 

Affidavit  of  John  Gray  of  Ottumwa 570-571 

A'arioHS  Ottumwa  communications 571-576 

Statement  by  Chairman  Butts  regarding  Marriott  affidavit 576 

Referendum  vote  on  voting  machines 577-578 

Testimony  of  R.  D.  Bemiss  (former  agent  for  Empire  Company) 578 

Empire  Company  changes  expense  account  methods 579 

"To  assistance'  in  landing  order,  so  much" 580 

Voters  from  20th  precinct,  First  Ward,  testify 581-589 

A  witness  from  the  24th  precinct,  First  Ward 589 

Testimony  of  Anthony  Czarneeki   (recalled) 590 

Voting  machine  minutes  of  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers introduced    590 

Voting  machine  rec-ount  record  of  Rinaker-Hoyne-Cunnea  contest.  .590-591 

Testimony  of  Harry  E.  Hoff,  custodian  of  voting  machines 591 

Witness  knows  nothing  about  changing  of  seals  on  voting  machines. .       591 
Describes   preparation  of   machines  for  elections  and  use  in  elec- 
tions   592-595 

Thinks  seals  on  voting  machines  unnecessary 596 

Witness'  opinion  of  defective  machine  voting  in  First  Ward 597 

Thinks  frauds  by  wire  clips,  etc.,  not  practical 598 

Witnesses  from  24th  precinct,  First  Ward,  testify 599 

Testimony  of  Ijawrence  P.  King '. 599 

Record  of  seal  changes  on  voting  machines  between  election   and 

recount 600-607 

Record   of  discrepancies   in   election   returns 608-611 

The  A.  M.  Lawrence  affidavit G12 

Testimony  of  Lawrence  F.  King   (resumed)  : 

Record   of  discrepancies  in  election  returns  continued 613-635 

Commission  asked  for  no  explanation  of  discrepancies 632 

Testimony  of  Michael  F.  McMahon 636 

Witness  makes  record  of  condition  of  voting  machines  seals  at  re- 
count   636-638 


Testimony  of  J.  J.  Miildowney 639 

Judges  instructed  to  put  seals  on  machines  at  close  of  election. . . .       C39 
Testimony  of  Lawrence  F.  King   (recalled) 639 

Defective  judges'  certificates 639-649 

Testimony  of  Joseph  F.  Cleary 650 

Testimony  of  Richard  A.  Shields 651 

Electrical  worlvers  use  voting  machines 651 

Testimony  of  Martha  E.  Abt. 651 

Washington  Park  Civic  League  uses  voting  machine 651 

Testimony    of   Frank    Murphy,    contract    clerk,    Department   of   Public 

Works 652 

Time  allowed  for  bids  in  the  department 652 

Testimony  of  Custer  L.  Hampton 653 

J^lectrlcal  Workers  Union  uses  voting  machine / . .       654 

Testimony  of  William  Fisher 654 

Stationary  Firemen's  Union  uses  voting  machine 654 

Testimony  of  William  B.  Cassidy 655-658 

Testimony  of  H.  E.  AVallaee 655-658 

Testimony  of  Bernard  McMahon 655-658 

Experience  of  Municipal  Pension  Fund  Association  with  voting  ma- 
chine   655-658 

Testimony  of  Carlton  R.  Dart 658 

Time  for  Sanitarj-  District  bids 658 

Testimony  of  W.  H.  Clark: 

Time  given  for  bids  by  State  Board  of  Administration 659-660 

Testimony  of  William  M.  Spencer,  of  Indianapolis 660 

Voting  machines  in  Indiana 661 

Testimony  of  C.   Otto  Brocker,  Milwaukee 662 

Voting  machines  in  Milwaukee 662 

Testimony  of  H.   C.   Schultz,   Milwaukee 663 

Voting  machines  in  Milwaukee 663 

Testimony  of  Charles  D.  Boyd,  Milwaukee 664 

Voting  machines  in   Milwaukee 664 

Testimony  of  Charles  A.  Kuhn 064 

Voting  machine   demonstrations 665-666 

Testimony  of  Susan  L.  Jenks 666 

Experimental  voting  on  voting  machine 667 

Testimony  of  John  S.  Bums 668 

Seals  furnished  to  Judges  of  election  to  replace  broken  seals 668 

Various  witnesses  show  how  they  voted  on  machine,  election  day 669-670 

Testimony  of  John  D.  Harris,  South  Bend,  Indiana 671 

Empire  machine  in  South  Bend 672 

Litigation  over  South  Bend  contract 674 

Frauds  by  custodian 675 

Empire  machine  loses  forty-one  votes 677 


xU 


Appendix. 

Official  Reports  of  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  State 
of  New  Jersey G79-737 

Voting   Machine    Specifications,    issued   by   Chicago    Board   of   Election 

Commissioners 638-745 

Articles  of  Incorporation,  List  of  Stoclcholders,  etc.,  of  Empire  Voting 

Machine  Company   746-754 

House  Joint  Resolution  No.  23  of  the  Forty-Eighth  General  Assembly.  .755-776 

Index  of  Subjects. 

Investigation  of  voting  machines  by  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine 
Commissioners 1-9 

Investigation  of  voting  machines  by  former  Chicago  Board  of  Election 

Commissioners 10-30 

Investigation  of  voting  machines  by  present  Chicago  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners 31-482, 590 

Protests  regarding  voting  machine  investigation  and  purchase  received 

by  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 

44-46,  47-55,  68-75,  80,  100,  108,  109,  111,  114,  115,  454,  455,  458 

Motions  made   by  Commissioner   Czarneclsl 35, 

43,  88;  89,  00,  91,  92,  113,  114,  115,  119,  131,  139,  144,  146-7.  457,  460,  485,  492 

The  Ottumwa  sub-committee 435,  436,  485,  488,  570,  571,  571-6 

Exhibits  and  matters  read  into  record : 

Newspaper  articles  93,  99,  510-525 

Taylor  resolution  for  contract  with  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company      122 

Contract  with  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company 125 

Notice  sent  to  city  authorities 149 

Report  of  Grand  Jury,  November,  1908 160 

Synopsis  of  reports  of  former  experts 170 

Reports  of  former  experts 174-237 

Hartford,   Connecticut,   voting   machine  report 240 

New  Jersey  voting  machine  report 245 

Report  of  Ottumwa  sub-committee 436 

Affidavit  of  Edward  E.  Marriott 485 

L.  L.  Dulse  statement 488 

John  Gray  (Ottumwa)  affidavit 570 

Ottumwa  communications   '. 571-576 

Referendum  vote  on  voting  machines 577 

Record  of  seal  changes  on  voting  machines 600-607 

Record  of  discrepancies  in  election  returns  from  voting  machines . .  608-625 

Affidavit  of  A.  M.  Lawrence 612 

Record  of  condition  of  voting  machine  seals  at  time  of  recount 636-638 


zUl 


Appendix. 


Official  report  of  New  Jersey  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Com- 
missioners   679-737 

Voting  mactiine  specifications  issued  by  Clilcago  Board  of  Election 

Commissioners 638-745 

Articles  of  incorporation,  list  of  stockholders,  etc.,  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Co 746-754 

House  Joint  Resolution  No.  23  of  Forty-Eighth  General  Assembly .  755-776 


Peoria,  Illinois,  June  11th,  Nineteen  Fifteen, 
To  the  Honorable,  the  49th  General  Assembly: 

Gentlemen : 

I  have  the  honor  to  present,  on  behalf  of  the  Illinois  Legis- 
lative Voting  Machine  Investigation  Committee,  authorized 
and  created  under  the  provisions  of  House  Joint  Resolution 
#23  of  the  48th  General  Assembly,  a  final  report  contained 
in  ^our  volumes  of  evidence,  four  volumes  containing  the 
aibstract  of  such  evidence  with  exhibits,  and  the  final  report 
and  recommendations  of  said  Committee,  all  of  which  is 
signed  by  a  majority  of  the  committee  and  most  respectfully 
submitted  for  your  consideration. 

This  Committee  was  unable  to  report  at  an  earlier  date  in 
the  session  because  of  the  following  facts: — 

The  appropriation  of  $10,000.00  was  exhausted  before  it 
finished  its  hearings.  The  Citizens  Association  of  Cliicago 
advanced  $2500.00  to  the  Committee  to  finish  its  hearings 
and  have  the  abstract  of  the  testimony  typewritten.  The 
abstract  was  prepared  in  short-hand  immediately  after  the 
hearings,  but  funds  for  transcribing  it  into  typewriting  were 
not  forthcoming  for  nearly  one  year.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  49th  General  Assembly  would  be  expected  to  con- 
sider the  report  by  the  Committee,  it  was  deemed  advisable 
to  have  the  abstract  of  testimony  printed  so  that  each  member 
of  the  General  Assembly  might  have  a  copy,  as  well  as  each 
member  of  the  Committee.  The  printed  abstract  comprises 
about  800  pages.  The  funds  for  printing  were  guaranteed 
by  the  Citizens  Association  of  Chicago  early  in  May,  1915, 
and  the  typewritten  abstract  was  in  the  hands  of  the  printer 
within  an  hour  after  arrangements  had  been  made  for  pay- 
ment. The  estimated  cost  is  about  $2500.00.  The  work  has 
been  pushed  with  all  possible  speed  to  have  the  abstract  for 
consideration  by  your  Honorable  Body. 

The  statement  that  Counsel  for  Committee  drafted  the 
report  is  misleading.  The  Chairman  discussed  with  Counsel 
the  testimony  and  the  facts  elicited  by  the  evidence.  The 
framing  of  the  report  was  prepared  along  the  lines  outlined 
by  the  Chairman.  The  report  contains  undisputed  facts  as 
a  reading  of  the  abstract  and  the  evidence  will  show. 

Regarding  the  publication  of  the  report  in  the  Chicago 


papers  on  June  2nd,  1915,  a  copy  of  the  report  for  each 
committeeman  was  put  into  a  package,  sealed  and  sent  to 
Springfield  by  express.  The  reports  received  by  the  reporters 
were  obtained  from  members  of  this  Committee  and  tele- 
graphed to  Chicago,  as  the  slightest  inquiry  would  show. 

The  criticism  of  the  motives  of  the  members  who  signed  the 
majority  report  is  unworthy  of  the  members  who  signed  the 
minority  report. 

Such  criticism  is  unusual,  and  unparliamentary  in  minority 
reports  or  decisions  and  in  this  report  is  without  foundation 
in  fact. 

I  deem  it  fair  to  the  majority  of  the  Committee,  its  Counsel 
and  myself,  to  make  this  statement. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Lucas  I.  Butts, 

Chairman. 


REPORT  OF  THE  LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE  AP- 
POINTED UNDER  JOINT  RESOLUTION  NO.  23,  OF 
THE  FORTY-EIGHTH  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

The  Forty-Eighth  General  Assembly  of  Illinois,  by  House 
Joint  Resolution  No.  23,  offered  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives by  Hon.  Lucas  I.  Butts,  April  9,  1913,  directed  an  in- 
vestigation by  a  Legislative  Committee  "of  the  official  con- 
duct and  acts  of  tlie  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Com- 
missioners, the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  and  any  and  all  of  the  official  conduct  and  acts 
of,  all  of  the  election  officers  of  the  City  of  Chicago  and  the 
County  of  Cook,  in  whatsoever  capacity  heretofore  or  now 
employed";  and  further,  empowered  the  committee  "to  make 
searching  investigation  and  exhaustive  examination  into  the 
contract  entered  into  between  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners of  the  City  of  Chicago,  or  its  agents,  and  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company,  its  agents,  etc.";  and  further 
empowered  the  committee  "to  make  searching  investigation 
and  exhaustive  examination  into  the  organization,  creation, 
incorporation,  or  establishment  of  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  identity  of 
its  stockholders,  officers,  owners,  trustees,  agents,  heirs,  as- 
signs or  receivers";  and  also  "searching  investigation  and 
exhaustive  examination  into  the  workings,  mechanism,  effi- 
ciency, quality,  material,  manufacture,  cost  and  sale  price 
of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine,"  and  into  "any  and  all 
matters  of  whatsoever  nature  referred  to  in  the  foregoing 
preamble  and  in  this  resolution  proper. ' ' 

To  carry  on  the  proposed  investigation,  a  committee  of 
twelve,  six  members  of  the  Senate  and  six  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  was  created  and  the  following  were 
appointed  members  of  the  committee :  Senators  F.  C.  Camp- 
bell ;  Richard  J.  Barr ;  J.  M.  Chamberlin,  Jr. ;  Stephen  D. 
Canaday ;  Frank  A.  Landee ;  Willis  R.  Shaw ;  and  Repre- 
sentatives Lucas  I.  Butts ;  Ferdinand  A.  Garesche ;  J.  H. 
Jayne;  Robert  S.  Jones;  R.  J.  Kasserman;  and  Edward  J. 
King. 

The  committee  was  organized  by  the  appointment  of  Hon. 
Lucas  I.  Butts  as  Chairman,  and  Hon.  F.  C.  Campbell  as 
Secretary  of  the  Committee. 

The  committee  selected  as  counsel  for  the  committee,  Hon, 
Charles  S.  Deneen. 


At  the  public  hearings  of  the  committee  there  appeared 
Hon.  Willard  M.  McEwen,  representing  Hon.  John  E.  Owens, 
Judge  of  the  County  Court  of  Cook  County;  Mr.  Charles  H. 
Mitchell,  attorney  for  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago,  representing  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners ; 

The  public  hearings  began  on  July  22d,  1913. 

The  general  powers  of  investigation  conferred  upon  the 
committee  by  the  resolution  of  your  honorable  body  were 
very  broad,  specific  attention,  however,  being  directed  by 
the  resolution  to  the  purchase  of  voting  machines  from  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  by  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  Whilst,  therefore,  the 
investigation  was  by  no  means  confined  to  this  subject,  the 
matters  investigated  related  in  the  main  to  the  following: 

1.  The  proceedings  of  the  former  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners in  relation  to  the  proposed  purchase  of  voting 
machines  for  the  City  of  Chicago. 

2.  Tlie  proceedings  of  the  present  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners leading  up  to  the  adoption  of  the  Empire  voting 
machine. 

3.  The  circumstances  surrounding  the  making  of  the  con.- 
tract  for  the  purchase  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  1,000  voting 
machines  from  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company. 

4.  The  fulfillment  by  the  Empire  Voting  Machines  pur- 
chased of  the  requirements  of  the  State  Voting  Machine  Law 
and  the  primary  and  general  election  laws  of  Illinois. 

5.  The  mechanical  efficiency  of  the  Empire  voting  ma- 
chine and  its  susceptibility  to  fraudulent  manipulation. 

6.  The  adaptability  of  the  Empire  voting  machine  to  the 
meeting  of  election  conditions  in  the  City  of  Chicago. 

7.  Experience  in  the  actual  use  of  Empire  voting  ma- 
chines in  the  City  of  Chicago  in  the  general  election  of  Novem- 
ber, 1912. 

8.  The  trustworthiness  of  the  record  of  the  Empire  voting 
machines  of  the  votes  cast  in  the  precincts  in  which  they  were 
used  at  that  election. 

The  public  hearings  of  the  legislative  committee  were  held 
in  the  assembly  rooms  of  the  County  Commissioners  of  Cook 
County.  Shortly  prior  to  the  first  of  these  hearings,  the 
Chairman  and  some  of  the  members  of  the  committee  accom- 
panied by  counsel  for  the  committee,  visited  the  warehouse 
in  which  the  voting  machines  were  stored  and  by  permission 
of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  secured  one  of  the 
voting  machines  for  examination  by  experts  employed  by  the 


committee  for  that  purpose.  This  machine  was  set  up  in  a 
room  at  the  Hotel  La  Salle,  and  for  nearly  three  weeks  was 
under  examination  by  these  experts  who  later  appeared  as 
witnesses  before  the  committee  and  testified  as  to  the  result 
of  their  examination. 

In  addition  to  this,  and  also  preliminary  to  the  public 
hearings,  counsel  for  the  committee  secured  from  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  a  copy  of  the  minutes  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  relating  to  their  investi- 
gation of  voting  machines  and  their  selection  and  subsequent 
purchase  of  the  Empire  voting  machines,  and  the  Election 
Commissioners,  who  were  all  called  as  witnesses  before  the 
qpmmittee,  were  examined  exhaustively  upon  this  official  rec- 
ord of  their  proceedings.  The  minutes  themselves  were  also 
introduced  in  evidence  and  form  a  part  of  the  record  of  the 
Legislative  investigation. 

Both  the  minutes  and  the  testimony  at  the  hearings  regard- 
ing the  adoption  of  the  Empire  voting  machines  by  the  Chi- 
cago Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  revealed  a  radical 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  in  regard  to  almost  every  step  which 
led  up  to  the  purchase  of  the  Empire  voting  machines ;  though 
both  the  minutes  and  testimony  also  showed  that  originally 
all  the  members  of  the  Commission  were  agreed  upon  the 
wisdom  of  an  examination  of  voting  machines  with  a  view  to 
their  purchase  and  use  by  the  City  of  Chicago,  provided  a 
safe,  efficient,  and  suitable  voting  machine  should  be  found. 

This  original  agreement  is  shown  generally  by  the  testi- 
mony of  all  the  election  commissioners,  Messrs.  Kellermann, 
Taylor  and  Czarnecki  and  specifically  by  the  minutes,  from 
which  the  following  is  quoted  from  the  March  4,  1911,  meeting 
of  the  commissioners,  the  first  meeting  at  which  the  voting 
machine  matter  was  taken  up: 

"Commissioner  Taylor  then  moved  that  this  Board  open 
up  competition  of  all  existing  voting  machine  manufacturing 
companies  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  or  not 
there  is  a  practical  and  efficient  voting  machine  which  could 
be  installed  in  the  election  precincts  in  the  City  of  Chicago 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Board,  and  that  the  chief  clerk 
be  directed  to  send  out  a  letter  to  all  the  different  companies 
manufacturing  such  machines  inviting  them  to  participate 
in  the  competition." 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  seconded  this  motion  which  was 
then  carried. 

At  the  March  24th  meeting  of  the  Board,  the  second  meet- 


6 

ing  at  which  the  voting  machine  question  was  considered,  it 
was  moved  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  that  any  voting  ma- 
chine company  be  permitted  to  install  voting  machines  in  pre- 
cincts to  be  designated  by  the  Board,  simply  for  experimental 
purposes,  as  a  preliminary  move  with  a  view  to  "starting  an 
agitation  which  will  probably  lead  to  further  procedure 
later  on." 

This  motion  was  seconded  by  Commissioner  Taylor  and 
carried  unanimously. 

As  appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  March  25th, 
when  representatives  of  some  of  the  voting  machine  com- 
panies objected  to  the  installation  of  voting  machines  on  such 
short  notice  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  prepared  to 
install  them,  it  was  stated  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  and 
Commissioner  Taylor  that  both  motions  contemplated  a  sub- 
sequent public  investigation  of  voting  machines  by  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  and  that  no  weight  would  be 
attached  to  the  results  of  the  preliminary  use  of  voting  ma- 
chines at  the  forthcoming  election,  and  a  motion  to  this  effect 
was  made  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  and  unanimously  car- 
ried. 

The  policy  of  installing  voting  machines  at  the  election  for 
experimental  purposes  and  the  investigation  of  voting  ma- 
chines with  a  view  to  their  purchase  was  therefore  favored 
at  the  outset  by  all  the  Election  Commissioners.  The  opposi- 
"tion  subsequently  shown  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  to  the 
action  of  the  Election  Commissioners  in  connection  with  the 
voting  machine  matter,  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the 
question  of  the  purchase  of  voting  machines  per  se.  It  had 
to  do  solely  with  the  methods  employed  by  the  majority  of 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in: 

1.  The  preparation  of  the  specifications. 

2.  The  terms  of  the  specifications. 

3.  The  time  allowed  for  filing  bids. 

4.  The  disposition  made  by  the  Board  of  Protests  re- 
ceived from  voting  machine  companies  regarding  the  specifi- 
cations and  the  time  for  filing  bids. 

5.  The  conduct  of  the  investigation  of  voting  machines 
by  the  experts  employed  by  Judge  Owens  and  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners. 

6.  The  report  of  the  experts. 

7.  The  disposition  made  by  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners of  protests  against  the  report  filed  by  voting  ma- 
chine companies  and  the  protests  of  the  Bureau  of  Public 


Efficiency  and  others  concerning  the  proceedings  of  the  Board 
in  regard  to  the  purchase  of  voting  machines. 

8.  The  adoption  of  the  Empire  voting  machines  by  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  upon  the  report  of  the 
experts. 

9.  The  making  of  the  contract  with  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company. 

10.  The  terms  of  the  contract. 

11.  The  failure  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
to  confer  with  the  municipal  authorities  of  the  Citv  of  Chicago 
on  the  question  of  financing  the  purchase  of  voting  machines, 
prior  to  entering  into  the  contract. 

^  The  opposition  of  Commissioner  Czarnecki  to  the  Board's 
proceedings  in  the  voting  machine  matter  first  appeared  in 
the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  April  24th.  At  that  meeting, 
Chief  Clerk  Stuart  stated  that  "it  was  time  to  take  some 
action  upon  voting  machine  specifications"  and  announced 
that  with  Attorney  Mitchell  he  had  prepared  a  draft  of  speci- 
fications which  he  desired  to  submit  to  the  Board.  Commis- 
sioner Czarnecki  then  urged  "that  the  consideration  and 
reading  be  deferred"  and  that  "time  be  given  to  every  com- 
missioner to  study  the  draft." 

This  motion  received  no  second. 

At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Board,  two  days  later.  Chief 
Clerk  Stuart  again  produced  his  draft  of  the  specifications 
which  was  then  submitted  to  the  Board.  The  specifications 
called  for  the  purchase  of  1400  voting  machines.  This  was 
later  changed  to  1200  on  motion  of  Commissioner  Taylor. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  moved  that  the  date  for  filing 
bids  be  made  August  1,  1911;  whereupon  Commissioner 
Taylor  moved  that  it  be  made  May  22,  1911.  The  latter  date 
was  adopted  by  the  votes  of  Commissioners  Kellerman  and 
Taylor,  Commissioner  Czarnecki  voting  "nay." 

The  draft  of  specifications,  therefore,  was  submitted  for 
the  first  time  to  the  consideration  of  the  commissioners  at  the 
meeting  of  April  26,  1911,  and  the  date  fixed  upon  for  the 
filing  of  bids.  May  22d,  was  but  '25  days  from  that  date.  The 
date  suggested  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  for  filing  bids 
was  three  months  from  the  date  at  which  the  draft  of  speci- 
fications was  first  under  consideration  by  the  Board.  A  previ- 
ous investigation  of  voting  machines  by  the  former  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago  had  been 
made  in  1909,  when  the  specifications  were  dated  January  15, 
1909,  and  the  time  for  filing  bids  was  fixed  at  September  35, 
1909,  nine  months  later. 


8 

At  the  meeting  of  April  27,  1911,  Chief  Clerk  Stuart  an- 
nounced that  the  specifications  had  been  published  and  bids 
advertised  for  in  the  public  press,  and  that  copies  of  the 
specifications  had  been  sent  to  all  voting  machine  companies 
whose  addresses  were  ascertainable. 

So  strongly  did  Commissioner  Czarnecki  disapprove  of  the 
terms  of  the  specifications  that  he  refused  to  sign  them  as 
commissioner  and  did  so  only  officially  as  secretary  of  the 
Board  under  the  compulsion  of  the  order  of  the  majority 
of  the  Board. 

Immediately  after  the  receipt  of  the  specifications  by  voting 
machine  companies,  communications  were  received  from  them 
by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  protesting  against 
the  terms  of  the  specifications,  and  especially  against  the 
short  time  allowed  for  the  filing  of  bids.  A  typical  protest 
of  this  character  is  that  of  the  American  Voting  Machine 
Company  of  Boston,  Massachusetts,  dated  May  12,  1911,  and 
submitted  to  the  Board  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  at  the 
meeting  of  May  15th,  from  which  the  following  is  quoted: 

"In  view  of  the  fact  that  your  proposal  did  not  reach 
our  company  until  the  10th  inst.,  and  owing  to  the  limited 
time  of  only  12  days  in  which  to  submit  a  sample  which 
meets  all  the  requirements  of  your  city,  and  the  approval 
of  the  Illinois  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Examiners,  this 
company  respectfully  petitions  your  honorable  board  to 
extend  the  time  limit  for  submitting  our  machine  to  June 
30th,  1911." 
Similar  protests  were  received  from  the  Ergy  Eegister 
Company ;  the  Caulkins  Voting  Machine  Company,  the  Amer- 
ican Voting  Machine  Company    of    Wooster;    the    Hoosier 
Voting  Machine  Company,  and  other  companies. 

At  the  same  meeting  of  the  Board  protests  against  the 
specifications  were  also  received  from  the  Winslow  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company,  and  the  Hoosier  Voting  Machine  Company, 
and  at  the  next  meeting,  May  23d,  1911,  a  communication  was 
received  from  the  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency,  dated 
May  20th,  1911,  criticising  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  in  reference  to  the  investigation  and  purchase 
of  voting  machines.  In  this  communication  the  whole  subject 
matter  is  gone  into  so  thoroughly  that  it  is  here  quoted  in 
full: 


May  20th,  1911. 
To  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago : 

GENTLEMElSf : 

By  direction  of  the  Board  of.  Trustees  of  the  Chicago  Bu- 
reau of  Public  Efficiency,  I  am  transmitting  herewith  a  re- 
port on  the  proposed  purchase  of  voting  machines  by  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

As  stated  in  the  report  itself,  the  inquiry  on  which  the  re- 
port is  based  was  undertaken  when  it  was  learned  through 
public  advertisement  that  bids  were  to  be  opened  on  May  22 
for  1,200  voting  machines.  This  work  is  in  line  with  the  gen- 
eral purpose  of  the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  to  make  stud- 
ies of  the  expenditures  of  the  local  governing  bodies  and  to 
furnish  the  public  with  exact  information  and  constructive 
suggestion  relative  thereto. 

The  Judge  of  the  County  Court  and  the  members  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  and  its  officers  and  em- 
ployes have  been  most  cordial  in  affording  to  representatives 
of  this  Bureau  opportunity  to  secure  information  on  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration.  This  report  is  offered  not  in  a 
spirit  of  hostile  criticism,  but  in  the  hope  that  it  may  be  of 
suggestive  value  to  the  Board  of  Election  and  of  benefit  to 
the  taxpaying  public. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency, 

Herbert  R.  Sands, 
Director. 

Keport  on  the  Proposed  Purchase  of  Voting  Machines  by 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

On  April  27th,  1911,  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  advertised  for  bids  for  voting  ma- 
chines, the  bids  to  be  opened  May  22.  The  advertisement  calls 
for  bids  on  1,200  machines  with  delivery  as  follows : 

Not  to  exceed  200  within  four  months  of  the  date  of  signing 
the  contract ;  not  to  exceed  300  more  within  nine  months ;  the 
balance  and  final  installment  within  twenty-one  months  from 
the  date  of  signing  the  contract.  The  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners reserves  the  right  to  take  a  less  number  of  ma- 
chines at  the  same  rate  and  to  require  the  delivery  of  addi- 
tional machines  at  a  price  no  higher  than  that  named  in  the 
original  contract. 


10 

The  amount  of  money  involved  in  this  transaction,  if  the 
number  of  voting  machines  named  in  the  specifications  should 
be  purchased,  presumably  would  be  in  excess  of  $1,000,000. 
No  well-defined  plan  for  financing  the  proposition  seems  to 
have  been  formulated,  but  inquiry  on  the  part  of  represen- 
tatives of  the  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  disclosed 
the  fact  that  neither  the  Comptroller  of  the  City  nor  the 
finance  committee  of  the  City  Council  had  been  consulted  upon 
the  matter  of  providing  funds  for  the  purchase  of  voting  ma- 
chines. Bidders  themselves  are  asked  to  name  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  payment,  particularized  as  to  the  method,  time, 
amount,  interest,  etc. 

Further  inquiry  of  election  officials  and  others  by  members 
of  the  staff  of  this  bureau  disclosed  that  the  successful  bidder 
would  be  expected  to  take  in  payment  for  voting  machines 
purchased,  evidences  of  indebtedness  to  be  issued  by  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  with  the  approval  of  the 
County  Judge,  to  be  payable  by  the  City  of  Chicago,  but  failed 
to  develop  what  the  character  of  such  evidences  of  indebted- 
ness would  be,  the  form  thereof,  or  what  provisions  were  to 
be  made  for  liquidating  the  same  as  they  matured. 

In  view  of  this  somewhat  anomalous  situation,  the  Bureau 
of  Public  Efficiency  has  made  as  full  an  inquiry  into  the  sub- 
ject as  the  limited  time  prior  to  the  opening  of  bids  would 
permit,  the  results  and  conclusions  of  that  inquiry  are  set 
forth  herein. 

The  General  Assembly  of  Illinois  in  1903  passed  a  law  au- 
thorizing the  use  of  voting  machines  in  this  State.  By  the 
terms  of  the  act,  election  officials  are  authorized  to  submit  to 
the  voters  of  specified  civil  divisions  of  the  State  the  propo- 
sition to  adopt,  a  voting  machine  or  voting  machines.  When 
the  people  vote  affirmatively  upon  such  propositions  the 
proper  election  officials  may  lease  or  purchase  voting  ma- 
chines. 

"The  requirements  which  must  be  met  by  the  voting 
machine  adopted  are  laid  down  with  considerable  par- 
ticularity in  the  act  and  provision  is  made  for  a  board 
of  voting  machine  commissioners,  consisting  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  State  and  of  two  other  persons,  who  shall 
be  mechanical  experts,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor. 
No  machine  may  be  purchased  without  the  certification 
of  this  state  board  of  voting  machine  commissioners  that 
it  meets  the  requirements  of  the  statute. 

On  November  4th,  1904,  the  general  proposition  to 
adopt  voting  machines  was  submitted  to  the  electors  of 


11 

Chicago  and  was  approved  by  a  vote  of  229,557  for, 
27,081  against.  Prior  to  that  time  some  experimental 
use  had  been  made  of  machines  placed  on  trial  in  a  few 
selected  precincts  and  immediately  thereafter  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  took  steps  looking  to  the  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines.  Bids  were  asked  and  opened 
on  three  different  occasions. 

November  21,  1904,  the  Board  called  for  bids  on  such 
number  of  machines  as  might  be  necessary  to  equip  the 
polling  places  under  its  supervision.  The  following  July 
all  the  bids  submitted  under  this  call  were  withdrawn 
and  the  manufacturers  agreed  to  submit  machines  for  ex- 
perimental use.  At  the  fall  election  of  1905  and  again  in 
'  the  April,  1907,  election,  machines  were  so  used. 

The  City  Council  having  appropriated  $100,000  in  the 
1907  budget,  advertised  for  bids  for  furnishing  machines 
to  that  amount,  the  Board  to  have  the  right  to  make  pur- 
chase for  any  part  thereof.  The  bids  received  in  re- 
sponse to  this  advertisement  were  opened  October  31, 
1907,  and  purchase  thereunder  deferred,  pendinj^  the 
examinations  of  the  machines  by  the  Board's  experts. 
These  tests  were  commenced  immediately  and  continued 
until  March  23,  1908,  when  the  Board  decided  not  to  pur- 
chase at  that  time.  (Pending  this  decision  the  City  Coun- 
cil again  in  the  1908  budget  appropriated  $100,000  for 
the  purchase  of  machines.)  Serious  objection  to  the  me- 
chanical construction  of  the  machines  was  assigned  aa 
the  reason  for  rejecting  the  bids. 

January  15,  1909,  the  Board  again  advertised  for  bids 
to  be  opened  September  15th  of  that  year.  It  was  pro- 
posed to  purchase  machines  to  such  an  amount,  not  to  ex- 
ceed $100,000,  as  the  Board  might  determine.  In  re- 
sponse to  this  call  four  machines  were  offered  in  compe- 
tition, the  names  of  the  machines  and  the  prices  bid  being 
as  follows : 

Empire,  $925,  with  primary  attachment,  $50  additional. 

Willix,  $1,050. 

Triumph,  $900,  with  instruction  model,  $925. 

AVinslow,  $900. 

After  these  machines  had  been  tested  by  experts  the 
Board  rejected  all  the  bids  and  in  so  doing  rendered  a 
decision  which  was  in  part  as  follows : 

As  in  the  previous  investigation,  the  machines  were 
thoroughly  inspected  and  tested  by  three  mechanical  ex- 
perts at  the  instance  of  the  Board.     Their  detailed  re- 


12 

ports  show  that  while  substantial  improvements  have 
been  made  within  the  past  year,  yet  there  are  still  re- 
maining such  defects  in  the  mechanical  arrangements  of 
all  the  machines  submitted  as  to  preclude  their  practical 
use  in  this  city. 

This  Board  is  of  the  opinion  that  among  the  many  nec- 
essary essentials  required  by  the  specifications  none  is 
of  greater  importance  than  that  which  requires  a  ma- 
chine to  record  the  vote  in  strict  compliance  with  the  law, 
and  absolutely  prevent  a  person  voting  for  more  candi- 
dates than  there  are  officers  to  be  elected. 

A  machine  which  can  be  so  manipulated  as  to  permit  a 
voter  to  vote  for  more  candidates  than  the  law  permits 
is  fatally  defective  and  its  use  would  only  be  productive 
of  protest  and  costly  litigation. 

Each  machine  is  found  to  be  seriously  defective  and 
their  purchase  at  this  time  impracticable;  therefore,  all 
bids  will  be  rejected. 

The  defect  in  each  machine  will  be  shown  to  the  rep- 
resentative of  that  machine. 

This  Board  in  response  to  an  overwhelming  vote  on 
the  proposition  has  faithfully  tried  to  find  a  satisfactory 
voting  machine.  Our  etforts  so  far  have  been  in  vain. 
We  do  not  know  when  we  will  advertise  again  for  bids, 
if  at  all,  but  we  desire  to  purchase  voting  machines  as 
soon  as  one  that  is  satisfactory  is  presented. 

Therefore,  we  desire  to  announce  that  if  any  time  after 
the  first  day  of  December,  1909,  any  one  believes  that  he 
or  they  have  a  voting  machine  that  will  answer  our  pur- 
poses, we  invite  you  to  bring  it  to  the  Board  and  the  same 
will  be  inspected. 

It  seems  to  us  that  this  will  be  a  proper  time  again  to 
give  all  the  suggestions  we  are  able  to  in  reference  to  the 
kind  of  a  machine  that  the  Board  wants  to  buy. 

^  First.  The  machine  must  allow  voting  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Second.  The  machine  must  prevent  any  voting  not  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Third.  It  must  be  accurate,  positive  and  incapable  of 
fraudulent  manipulation. 

Fourth.    We  want  as  small  a  machine  as  is  practicable. 

Fifth.    We  want  as  light  a  machine  as  practicable. 

Sixth.  And,  taking  all  the  foregoing  into  considera- 
tion, we  want  as  cheap  a  machine  as  possible. 


13 

Seventh.  When  such  a  machine  is  presented  to  us  a 
purchase  will  be  made. ' 

In  response  to  the  foregoing  invitation,  during  the 
spring  and  summer  of  1910  three  machines  were  sub- 
mitted and  were  examined  by  mechanical  experts  em- 
ployed by  the  Board.  None  of  these  machines  received 
the  unqualified  endorsement  of  the  experts. 

Although  many  improvements  had  been  effected  in  the 
interim,  it  was  the  opinion  of  these  men  that  it  was  not 
then  advisable  to  purchase  a  large  number  of  machines 
and  that  improvements  were  to  be  looked  for  in  the  fu- 
ture. The  machines  on  which  the  mechanical  detail  had 
been  more  satisfactorily  worked  out  were  said  to  be 
large,  heavy,  difficult  to  handle  and  store  and  not  easily 
set  up  and  adjusted — in  this  connection  affording  oppor- 
tunities for  careless  or  dishonest  officials  to  nullify  the 
operation  of  the  machine. 

Early  in  the  present  year  the  new  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  that  came  into  office  last  December  took 
up  for  consideration  the  subject  of  the  purchase  of  vot- 
ing machines.  On  April  27th,  as  stated  at  the  outset  of 
this  report,  the  Board  decided  to  advertise  for  bids  for 
1,200  voting  machines,  the  bids  to  be  opened  on  May 
22nd.  Prior  specifications  had  limited  the  bids  for  ma- 
chines to  the  number  that  could  be  secured  for  $100,000. 

There  are  numerous  objections  to  the  purchase  on  one 
order  of  so  large  a  number  of  voting  machines  as  1,200. 
According  to  the  experts  who  have  made  examinations 
heretofore  for  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  the 
voting  machine  is  still  in  somewhat  of  an  experimental 
state  and  substantial  improvements  may  be  looked  for  in 
the  future. 

The  Chicago  situation  presents  unusual  obstacles  to  the 
successful  use  of  voting  machines.  Among  these  are  the 
long  ballot  made  necessary  by  the  large  number  of  offices 
to  be  filled  at  some  elections ;  the  group  voting  for  cer- 
tain offices,  such  as  judges  and  county  commissioners; 
and  the  system  of  cumulative  voting  for  members  of  the 
lower  House  of  the  General  Assembly,  which  is  peculiar 
to  Illinois.  The  fact  that  women  may  vote  for  Univer- 
sity Trustees  but  not  for  other  officers  requires  a  re- 
strictive device  that  introduces  additional  complications. 
The  long  ballot  necessitates  the  use,  in  Chicago,  of  a 
larger  and  heavier  machine  than  is  required  in  other 
cities  that  have  adopted  voting  machines.    The  size  and 


14 

weight  of  the  machine  causes  it  to  present  problems  of 
transportation,  of  storing  and  of  setting  up  in  the  voting 
booth.  There  are  special  complexities  due  to  the  use  of 
the  voting  machine  at  a  primary  election  at  which  nom- 
inations are  to  be  made  for  a  large  number  of  offices. 

Aside  from  the  mechanical  operation  of  the  machine 
itself  there  are  other  elements  of  uncertainty  connected 
with  the  use  of  voting  machines  than  for  experimentation 
and  caution.  It  cannot  be  told  until  the  actual  trial  is 
made  how  rapidly  the  voting  can  be  done  by  machine, 
even  assuming  the  mechanism  to  operate  perfectly  so  far 
as  all  except  the  human  element  is  concerned.  This  Bu- 
reau learns  that  in  Minneapolis,  where  voting  machines 
are  in  use,  the  voting  has  been  so  much  slower  than  an- 
ticipated that  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  install  two 
machines  to  a  precinct  of  600  voters,  instead  of  one.  The 
Illinois  law  contemplated  a  single  machine  to  a  precinct 
of  600  voters.  Then  there  are  problems  of  transporta- 
tion and  storage  and  the  proper  setting  of  the  machines 
in  the  booths.  Three  of  those  machines  will  make  a 
truckload  and  it  will  require  at  least  three  men  to  handle 
one.  Skilled  persons  will  be  required  to  set  them  up 
when  taken  from  the  storage  room  to  the  voting  booth. 
It  would  seem  that  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
ought  to  acquire  experience  in  handling  50  or  100  ma- 
chines before  undertaking  the  burden  of  managing  1,200. 
This  experience,  moreover,  should  be  in  connection  with 
the  most  trying  elections  such  as  the  primary  of  April, 
1912,  and  the  election  of  the  following  November,  when 
the  long  ballot  must  be  voted. 

The  voting  machine  law  contemplates  that  following 
the  adoption  of  machines  the  number  of  voters  to  a  pre- 
cinct will  be  doubled  and  the  number  of  precincts  thus 
reduced  by  half.  The  statute  directs  the  rearrangement 
of  precincts  so  that  each  precinct  shall  contain  approxi- 
mately 600  voters.  On  the  basis  of  the  present  registra- 
tion, this  would  give  only  705  precincts.  As  there  is 
supposed  to  be  but  one  machine  to  a  precinct  with  pos- 
sibly an  extra  machine  to  a  ward  for  emergency  pur- 
poses, it  is  hard  to  see  why  more  than  750  machines  at 
the  outside  should  be  needed  if  the  requirements  of  the 
statute  are  to  be  followed.  One  of  the  chief  arguments 
in  favor  of  voting  machines  is  that  they  will  bring  about 
a  substantial  decrease  in  the  cost  of  holding  elections. 


15 

Unless  this  contemplated  reduction  in  the  number  of 
precincts  is  made,  the  desired  saving  will  not  be  effected. 

The  financial  aspect  of  this  affair  also  calls  for  serious 
consideration.  The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 
with  respect  to  finances,  occupies  a  somewhat  anomalous 
position.  Under  the  law  some  of  its  expenses  must  be 
paid  by  the  County  of  Cook,  others  by  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. The  Board  claims,  and  probably  rightly,  so  far 
as  ordinary  expenses  are  concerned,  that  it  has  the  power 
to  incur  liabilities,  for  the  payment  of  which  provision 
must  be  made  by  the  City  or  County,  as  the  case  may  be. 

The  Board  appears  to  assume,  and  perhaps  rightly, 
that  this  power  to  incur  indebtedness  in  the  name  of  the 
City,  without  the  consent  of  its  officers,  is  broad  enough 
to  include  the  purchase  of  voting  machines  to  the  amount 
of  $1,000,000  or  more. 

The  manner  in  which  this  obligation  is  to  be  provided 
for  is  not  clear.  The  financial  officers  of  the  City  have 
been  in  no  way  consulted  in  the  matter,  and  it  evidently 
is  the  intention  of  tlie  Election  Commissioners  to  issue  ii;^ 
payment  evidences  of  indebtedness  in  some  form  which 
shall  be  payable  by  the  City.  Whatever  power  there  is  to 
do  so  (except  as  to  warrants  issued  by  the  County  Judge 
under  the  City  Election  Law)  is  to  be  found  in  Section  5 
of  Voting  Machine  Law,  which  is  as  follows: 

'The  local  authorities,  on  the  adoption  and  lease  or 
purchase  of  a  voting  machine  or  voting  machines,  may 
provide  for  the  payment  therefor  in  such  manner  as  may 
be  deemed  for  the  best  interest  of  the  city,  village,  in- 
corporated town  or  county.  They  may  for  that  purpose 
make  leases,  issue  bonds,  certificates  of  indebtedness  or 
other  obligations,  which  shall  be  a  charge  on  the  city, 
village,  incorporated  town  or  county.  S\ich  bonds,  cer- 
tificates or  other  obligations  may  be  issued  with  or  with- 
out interest,  payable  at  such  times  or  time  as  the  au- 
thorities may  determine,  but  shall  not  be  issued  or  sold 
at  less  than  par.' 

So  far  as  investigators  for  this  Bureau  have  been  able 
to  learn  there  are  in  the  records  of  the  office  of  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  no  written  legal  opinions  covering 
this  point,  nor  has  it  been  passed  upon  by  the  courts. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  discussion,  however,  the  legal 
power  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  to  issue 
without  conference  with  the  city  authorities  evidences  of 
indebtedness  which  the  city  must  pay,  is  a  matter  of  less 


16 

moment  than  the  wisdom  of  the  course.  With  reference 
to  ordinary  expenditures  the  Board,  while  holding  that 
it  is  not  bound  in  law  to  request  appropriations  from  the 
City  Council,  does  go  through  the  form  of  stating  its 
wants  to  that  body  and  of  having  appropriations  made 
for  it,  as  is  done  for  other  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernments. This  is  the  course  which  the  Board  ought  to 
pursue.  Any  other  procedure  would  tend  to  demoralize 
the  finances  of  the  city.  The  power  conferred  by  law 
upon  the  Election  Commissioners  to  compel  the  city  to 
pay  its  expenses  was  not  intended  for  arbitrary  or  wlaim- 
sical  use,  but  only  as  a  safeguard  to  prevent  a  contu- 
macious city  government  from  interfering  with  the  elec- 
tion processes  by  wantonly  refusing  to  make  appropria- 
tions for  the  necessary  expenses  thereof. 

If  this  is  the  correct  view  with  respect  to  ordinary  ex- 
penditures involving  comparatively  small  amounts,  the 
same  reasoning,  of  course,  would  apply  with  still  greater 
force  to  the  proposition  to  incur  obligations  of  large 
amounts  for  extraordinary  purposes,  such  as  the  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines.  Public  opinion  should  demand 
that  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  confer  with 
the  financial  officers  of  the  city  prior  to  the  incurring  of 
obligations  of  $1,000,000  or  even  for  $100,000,  the  amount 
which  the  prior  Board  planned  to  spend  for  voting  ma- 
chines. The  prior  Board  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  twice 
secure  Council  appropriations  for  $100,000  for  the  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines,  in  advance  of  the  opening  of 
bids,  which  appropriations  were  not  drawn  upon  because 
the  machines  were  not  actually  purchased.  Action  by 
the  City  Council  in  advance,  whether  necessary  in  law 
or  not,  is  essential  from  the  viewpoint  of  public  economy. 
Evidences  of  indebtedness  issued  by  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners,  without  previous  council  approval, 
would  occupy  such  a  novel  status  that  they  would  of 
necessity  have  to  carry  a  higher  rate  of  interest  to  enable 
them  to  sell  at  par.  The  city  can  borrow  for  about  four 
per  cent.  Obligations  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners presumably  would  carry  a  rate  at  least  one  per 
cent,  higher,  and  one  per  cent,  on  $1,000,000  amounts  to 
$10,000  a  year,  a  sum  worth  saving.  Not  only  should 
the  financial  officers  of  the  city  be  consulted  in  advance 
of  the  issuances  of  such  evidences  of  indebtedness,  but 
they  ought  to  be  consulted  in  advance  of  the  advertise- 
ment for  bids.    For  certainty  as  to  the  plans  for  payment 


17 

might  be  a  factor  with  bidders  in  fixing  the  prices  quoted ; 
the  more  definite  and  clear  the  arrangement  for  prompt 
payment  the  lower  the  price. 

In  reply  to  what  has  been  stated  herein  it  may  be  said 
that  the  JBoard  of  Election  Commissioners,  while  it  has 
called  for  bids  on  1,200  machines,  might  not  decide  to 
purchase  that  number.  It  has  the  right  under  the  speci- 
fications to  take  a  smaller  number  than  1,200,  or  to  re- 
ject all  the  bids.  The  requirement  that  every  bidder 
must  submit  with  his  bid  a  certified  check  for  5  per  cent. 
of  the  amount  of  the  bid  in  all  probability  means  a  check 
for  approximately  $50,000.  This  sum  might  be  so  large 
_,as  to  deter  some  bidders.  If  it  be  not  the  plan  to  purchase 
*  1,200  machines,  the  amount  of  the  deposit  should  be 
less.  The  requirement  as  to  the  delivery  of  the  ma- 
chines, in  case  an  order  for  1,200  is  placed,  would  also 
seem  to  be  so  severe  that  strict  compliance  with  the  speci- 
fications in  this  respect  would  be  out  of  the  question  for 
most  bidders,  if  not  all. 

The  main  conclusions  reached  as  the  result  of  this  in- 
quiry may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

1st.  The  number  of  voting  machines  to  be  purchased 
in  the  near  future  should  be  limited  to  one  hundred  at 
the  most;  and  the  purchase  of  a  greater  number  of  ma- 
chines should  be  postponed  until  after  trial  at  the  pri- 
maries of  April,  1912,  and  at  the  election  of  November, 
1912,  of  such  limited  number  of  machines. 

2nd.     The  Board  of  Election   Commissioners   should 
seek  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  financial  authori- 
ties of  the  city  in  advance  of  action  looking  to  the  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines,  whatever  the  amount  involved. 
In  offering  these  suggestions,  the  Chicago  Bureau  of 
Public  Efficiency  wishes  to  be  understood  as  in  nowise 
hostile  to  the  adoption  of  voting  machines.     It  merely 
urges  the  policy  of  experimentation  and  caution  which 
it  believes  is  demanded  by  ordinary  business  prudence, 
in  view  of  the  difficulties  and  uncertainties  of  the  situa- 
tion, which  are  greater  for  Chicago  than  for  any  other 
city  in  the  land." 
Upon  presenting  these  communications  to  the  Board,  Com- 
missioner Czarnecki  moved  that  the  protests  be  taken  up  for 
consideration  and  disposed  of  at  the  following  meetings  of 
the  Board.    His  motions  received  no  second.     Commissioner 
Taylor  moved  that  these  communications  be  placed  on  file 
and  his  motion  was  carried  by  the  votes  of  Commissioners 


18 

Taylor  and  Kellermann;  Commissioner  Czarnecki  voting 
''nay."  None  of  these  protests  received  further  considera- 
tion of  any  kind. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  thereupon  moved  that  the  bids  be 
not  opened  until  Thursday  and  that  notice  be  given  the  com- 
panies of  a  two  months '  extension  of  time  for  filing  bids.  Com- 
missioner Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second.  On  mo- 
tion of  Commissioner  Taylor  the  meeting  adjourned. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  further  moved  that  "this  Board 
now  resolve,  in  view  of  Section  6  [of  the  specifications]  which 
authorized  the  Board  to  purchase  any  number  of  the  full  num- 
ber of  machines  that  are  purchased  be  the  first  installment  of 
one-tenth  of  the  1,200  and  that  we  do  not  purchase  any  more 
until  that  one-tenth  is  tested  and  tried  out  at  the  primaries 
of  1912." 

Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second  and 
the  opening  of  bids  was  proceeded  with. 

After  the  opening  of  bids,  three  experts  were  selected  by 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  to  examine  voting  ma- 
chines submitted.  These  experts  later  made  their  report 
dated  June  20th,  1911.  It  is  a  report  on  "the  actual  and  rela- 
tive merits  of  certain  voting  machines  which  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  have  received  proposals  for."  The 
relative  and  qualified  character  of  the  recommendations  made 
by  tlie  experts  as  well  as  the  general  character  of  their  re- 
port may  be  seen  from  the  following  extracts  from  the  report 
on  the  Empire  voting  machine : 

"Because  of  the  absence  of  the  party-lever  which  in 
other  machines  operates  each  of  the  individual  keys  of 
that  party,  split  voting  must  be  done  by  pulling  down 
individually  the  keys  wliich  represent  the  candidates  to 
be  voted  for,  and  this  on  a  70-key  board  will  scarcely  be 
done  within  one  minute 's  time  permitted  to  each  voter  in 
the  voting  booth.  It  also  makes  it  necessary  to  add  the 
ballot  cast  on  the  party-key  to  these  on  the  individual 
key. 

The  Empire  has  no  provision  to  restrict  the  number 
of  inspections  or  the  number  of  times  which  the  judges 
of  election  may  have  access  to  the  counters." 

The  experts  report  possibilities  of  fraud  on  the  Empire  ma- 
chine as: 

"Possibility  of  fraud  by  judge,  wrong  setting  of 
counters. 

Fraud  by  custodian;  same. 

Provision  for  three  inspections;  none." 


The  experts '  report  further  states : 

"Provision  for  a  prescribed  and  limited  number  of 
inspections  of  counters  by  election  judges  before  and 
after  the  hours  of  voting,  your  experts  consider  highly 
desirable.  Provision  for  limiting  the  number  of  inspec- 
tions by  judges  is  made  in  the  International  machine  and 
the  Winslow  machine,  but  is  not  provided  in  the  Triumph 
or  the  Empire." 

Concluding  their  report,  the  experts  say: 

"Taking  the  machines  as  submitted  and  allowing  for 
such  changes  as  manufacturers  would  doubtless  be  glad 
to  make  if  requested,  your  commission  gives  them  the 
following  relative  rating  for  general  adaptability  to  your 
purpose." 

Having  called  the  attention  of  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners to  the  various  defects  mentioned,  the  experts  then 
find  that  the  Empire  voting  machine  is  the  best  of  the  ma- 
chines submitted  for  their  investigation. 

It  was  upon  this  recommendation  that  both  the  subsequent 
purchase  of  voting  machines  by  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners of  the  City  of  Chicago  and  the  opposition  thereto 
by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  was  largely  predicated. 

The  meeting  of  the  Board  on  June  30th,  1911,  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  moved,  in  view  of  the  silence  of  the  experts'  report 
concerning  the  adaptability  of  the  Empire  machine  to  group 
voting,  "that  the  adaptability  of  the  machine  in  that  regard 
be  tested  before  proceeding  further  in  the  voting  machine 
matter." 

Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 

Commissioner  Taylor  observed  that  since  the  report  was 
silent  upon  group-voting  device,  they  "had  found  no  objec- 
tion thereto." 

Commissioner  Taylor  therefore  moved  "that  this  Board  do 
at  once  proceed  to  arrange  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting 
machines." 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  thereupon  renewed  his  motion  to 
limit  the  first  purchase  of  voting  machines  to  120. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  that  the  attorney  for  the 
Board  be  required  to  furnish  an  opinion  with  reference  to 
financing  the  purchase  of  voting  machines. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 

The  attorney  for  the  Board  then  stated  that  he  furnished 
an  opinion  to  the  court  and  that  it  would  be  delivered  to  the 
Board  in  due  time. 


20 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  renewed  Ms  motion  that  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  confer  with  "the  city  offi- 
cials in  charge  of  Chicago's  finances,  namely,  the  Mayor,  City 
Treasurer,  City  Comptroller,  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee, and  the  Corporation  Counsel,  as  to  the  method  of 
financing  the  purchase  of  voting  machines  before  any  action 
is  taken  definitely  by  this  Board." 

Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 
Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved: 

' '  I  move  that  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  be 
ordered  to  produce  before  this  Board  a  machine  which 
will  have  the  objections  of  weight,  cumbersomeness,  lack 
of  restriction  of  inspections,  the  inability  of  the  voter 
casting  a  straight  party  vote  to  see  any  indications  as  to 
the  names  of  the  candidates  he  votes  for  or  against,  of 
the  absence  of  the  party-lever,  the  absence  of  any  printed 
record  of  the  counters  before  and  after  the  voting  takes 
place,  the  absence  of  the  grand  total  of  both  straight  and 
individual  vote  at  the  close  of  an  election,  and  other  im- 
perfections cured  and  corrected  before  the  question  of 
passing  upon  its  merits  or  awarding  the  contract  to  that 
company  is  resolved  upon." 
Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 
Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  for 

"the  public  inspection  of  all  voting  machines  provided 
for  in  Section  18  of  the  specifications,  at  which  the  bidder 
will  be  required  to  have  present  a  person  competent  to 
demonstrate  in  every  particular  the  operation  of  the  ma- 
chine offered  in  bid." 
Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 
Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved 

"that  before  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  machines  in- 
volving large  expenditure  to  be  proceeded  with,  the  ques- 
tion of  such  purchase  be  submitted  to  the  people." 
Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 
Commissioner  Taylor's  motion  to  proceed  with  the  pur- 
chase of  1,000  voting  machines  was  then  seconded  by  Com- 
missioner Kellermann  and  carried  by  the  votes  of  Commis- 
sioners  Kellermann  and   Taylor;   Commissioner   Czarnecki 
voting  "nay." 

Protests  against  the  award  of  the  experts  and  the  making 
of  the  contract  with  the  Empire  Company  and  a  demand  for 
the  return  of  checks  were  then  received  from  Winslow  Voting 
Machine  Company,  the  Triumph  Voting  Machine  Company 
and  the  International  Voting  Machine  Company. 


21 

Mr.  Hall,  of  the  International  Voting  Machine  Company, 
also  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  "all  drawings,  instruc- 
tions, data  and  information  to  the  Board,  in  sealed  packages, 
were  returned  unopened  with  the  seals  unbroken  to  the  com- 
pany. ' ' 

Mr.  Winslow,  of  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company, 
stated  that  "his  packages  of  drawings,  plans,  information, 
printed  data,  had  not  been  opened  from  the  time  he  turned 
it  over  to  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  and  that  the 
seal  thereon  was  unbroken,  and  that  he  protested  against 
such  ignoring  of  the  specifications." 

Dr.  Taylor  suggested  that  if  the  companies  desired  to  pre- 
sent a  protest  they  do  so  in  writing. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  submitted  written  protests  from 
the  Triumph  Voting  Machine  Company,  the  International 
Voting  Machine  Company,  and  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine 
Company.  Commissioner  Taylor  thereupon  moved  that  these 
protests  be  placed  on  file. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  "that  the  Board  rescind  its 
action  with  reference  to  notifying  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company  that  the  Board  is  ready  to  enter  into  a  contract" 
and  that  "the  three  companies  complaining  and  protesting 
have  an  opportunity  to  reply  to  the  experts'  report;  and  that 
the  entire  subject  may  be  reopened  and  begun  anew." 

Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 

Conmiissioner  Taylor  moved  that  the  protests  be  placed  on 
file,  which  motion  was  seconded  by  Commissioner  Kellermann 
and  passed  by  a  vote  of  two  to  one ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
voting  "nay." 

Other  motions  were  then  submitted  by  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki, providing  for  a  final  test  of  the  Empire  voting  ma- 
chine before  acceptance,  and  requiring  a  deposit  of  $25,000 
to  guarantee  the  production  of  a  sample  machine  with  9-party 
columns,  70  keys,  by  the  Empire  Company  by  October  23d, 
1911. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motions  received  no  second. 

Mr.  Winslow,  of  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company, 
then  addressed  the  commission  and  asked  Commissioner  Kel- 
lermann : 

"Chairman  Kellermann,  do  you  know  of  any  public 
examinations  held  under  Section  18  of  the  specifica- 
tions?" 

To  which  question  Chairman  Kellermann  answered: 
"I  know  of  none." 

Mr.  Hall,  of  the  International  Voting  Machine  Company, 


•IS 

protested  against  the  failure  to  have  a  public  examination  as 
provided  by_  Section  18.  He  characterized  the  report  of  the 
experts  as  libelous  and  unfair  and  declared  that  the  matter 
would  be  carried  to  the  courts  by  his  company. 

At  the  meeting  of  July  21st,  1911,  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
submitted  and  read  the  following  communication  from  the 
experts  appointed  by  Judge  Owens: 

"Honorable  John  E.  Owens, 
Judge  of  the  County  Court, 

County  Building,  Chicago,  Illinois. 
Sie: 

Your  commission  of  experts  which  formerly  inspected 
and  reported  on  the  four  voting  machines  for  which  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  received  bids,  having 
since  examined  a  70-key,  9-party  machine  built  by  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  and  finds  as  follows : 

The  70-key,  9-party  machine  differs  from  the  50-key, 
7-party  machine  in  the  following  particulars : 

The  70-key,  9-party  machines  are  provided  with  a  re- 
leasing lever  attachment  which  must  be  thrown  before 
it  is  possible  to  operate  the  individual  candidate  keys. 

The  50-key,  7-party  Empire  voting  machine  formerly 
examined  did  not  have  this  releasing  lever  attachment, 
and  we  are  told  that  the  70-key,  9-party  machine  which 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  proposes  to  fur- 
nish will  not  have  the  attachment,  which  attachment  your 
commission  considers  undesirable. 

In  the  70-key,  9-party  machine,  provision  for  inde- 
pendent voting  by  written  ballots  on  the  paper  roll  is 
identical  with  the  arrangement  on  the  50-key,  7-party 
machines,  except  that  in  the  70-key,  9-party  machines  the 
slots  in  the  casing,  through  which  the  voter  obtains  ac-. 
cess  to  the  paper  roll  are  one-half  inch  shorter  than  they 
are  in  the  50-key,  7-party  machines;  also  the  shaft  on 
which  the  roll  of  paper  is  carried,  is  provided  with  a  re- 
lease attachment  so  that  when  the  machine  is  used  for 
exhibition  the  roll  may  be  disconnected. 

Your  commission  recommends  that  slots  of  ample 
length  for  independent  voting  be  provided  and  that  the 
releasing  attachment  on  the  shaft  which  carries  the  paper 
roll  be  omitted,  thus  making  the  design  of  the  70-key, 
9-party  machine  conform  in  this  respect  to  the  design  of 
the  50-key,  7-party  machine  formerly  examined. 

Your  commission  finds  that  the  mechanical  principles 


23 

of  the  Empire  voting  machine  are  applicable  to  a  ma- 
chine of  70  keys,  or  100  keys,  or  of  double  that  number. 
Your  commission  did  not  jiave  facilities  for  weighing 
the  machine  and  therefore  is  unable  to  state  of  its  own 
knowledge  what  the  weight  actually  is. 
Respectfully  submitted, 

W.  L.  Abbott, 

Paul  M.  Chamberlain, 

William  Wooley." 

In  view  of  the  defects  found  and  qualified  approval  given 
to  the  Empire  machine  in  this  report,  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki  moved  that  in  view  of  defects  in  the  9-party,  70-key  sam- 
ple voting  machine,  namely,  the  releasing  lever  attachment, 
which  the  experts  declared  to  be  undesirable;  and  the  slots 
for  independent  voting,  which  the  experts  considered  too 
small;  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company  still  had  more  than  two  months  in  which  to 
furnish  a  sample  voting  machine  in  all  respects  the  same  as 
the  machines  to  be  purchased  by  the  City  of  Chicago,  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  defer  further  action  until 
such  sample  voting  machine  was  actually  submitted  to  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki's  motion  received  no  second. 

Commissioner  Taylor  thereupon  offered  a  resolution  de- 
claring "any  two  members  of  this  Board,  together  with  the 
Chief  Clerk  of  this  Board,  are  hereby  authorized  and  in- 
structed to  execute  and  deliver  a  written  contract"  to  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  for  the  purchase  of  1,000 
voting  machines  at  the  aggregate  price  of  $942,500. 

A  copy  of  the  contract  with  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company  was  attached  to  this  resolution,  copies  of  which 
were  then  furnished  to  the  commissioners  and  the  contract 
read  aloud  by  the  attorney  for  the  Board. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  stated  that  this  was  the  first 
time  he  had  seen  the  contract,  and  asked  for  time  to  read  and 
consider  it  with  a  view  to  offering  amendments  such  as  a 
penalizing  clause  and  other  matters  which  were  missing  from 
the  contract  as  dra"v\Ti. 

Commissioner  Taylor  objected  to  the  delay. 

T]!ommissioner  Kellermann  then  put  Commissioner  Tay- 
lor's motion  for  the  approval  of  the  contract,  which  was  car- 
ried by  a  vote  of  two  to  one ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki  voting 
"nay." 

The  above  matters  taken  from  the  minutes  of  the  proceed- 


24 

ings  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  disclose  the 
circumstances  surrounding  the  investigations  and  purchase 
of  voting  machines  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago,  so  far  as  they  appear  in  its  official 
record.  They  justify  the  statement  made  at  the  beginning 
of  this  report  that  the  opposition  displayed  in  the  meetings 
of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  by  Conmiissioner 
Czarnecki  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  merits  of  vot- 
ing machines. 

A  reading  of  the  communication  of  the  Bureau  of  Public 
Efficiency;  of  the  newspaper  comments,  some  of  which  were 
introduced  into  the  records  of  this  investigation,  and  of  the 
protests  filed  by  the  voting  machine  companies  with  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners ;  also  shows  that  tlie  opposition  to 
the  voting  machine  investigation  and  purchase  did  not  arise 
from  any  opposition  to  the  use  of  voting  machines  at  Chicago 
elections  or  the  purchase  of  voting  machines  by  the  City  of 
Chicago,  but  rested  upon  substantial  grounds  of  objection  to 
the  methods  adopted  by  the  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners in  regard  to  the  purchase  of  Empire  voting  ma- 
chines. 

The  unfavorable  impression  as  to  the  course  adopted  in 
the  purchase  of  Empire  voting  machines  created  by  an  exam- 
ination of  the  minutes  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners, was  in  no  way  changed  or  modified,  but  was  much 
strengthened  by  the  testimony  received  at  the  hearing  before 
the  legislative  committee.  The  testimony  of  the  State  Board 
of  Voting  Machine  Examiners,  by  members  of  the  former 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  by  members  of  the  present 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  and  the  other  testimony 
offered  concferning  the  purchase  and  use  of  voting  machines 
in  the  City  of  Chicago  was  decidedly  adverse  and  strongly 
discredited  the  course  followed  by  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners. 

It  is  true  that  the  two  members  of  the  State  Commission  of 
Voting  Machine  Examiners  testified  that  they  had  certified 
that  the  Empire  machine  "complied  with  the  state  law." 
But  this  certificate  had  been  given  by  the  State  Board  to  every 
voting  machine  submitted  to  it,  except  one,  an  incomplete  ma- 
chine, and  was  of  no  value  in  determining  the  practical  ques- 
tions presented  to  the  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners when  they  came  to  consider  the  purchase  of  voting  ma- 
chines for  use  in  the  City  of  Chicago.  Moreover,  both  mem- 
bers of  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Examiners  also 
testified  at  the  hearing  before  the  committee  that  the  Em- 


25 

pire  voting  machine  was  subject  to  fraudulent  manipulation 
by  the  custodian  and  by  the  judges  of  election,  and  one  of 
them,  Morris  Emerson,  stated  that  he  thought  voting  ma- 
chines impracticable  "under  the  present  primary  law." 

The  investigations  made  by  the  former  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  had  led  uniformly  to  the  same  conclusions 
by  the  Board.  The  reports  made  by  the  experts  employed 
by  the  former  Board  had  been  unfavorable  to  voting  ma- 
chines and  had  been  accompanied  by  recommendations  that 
they  be  not  purchased  by  the  City  of  Chicago.  The  result  of 
all  the  investigations  made  had  been  rejection  by  the  former 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  all  machines  submitted. 

To  the  same  unfavorable  effect  as  the  reports  of  the  experts 
employed  in  previous  investigations,  was  the  testimony  of 
the  experts  employed  by  the  legislative  committee,  Messrs. 
Clarence  E.  Depuy,  connected  with  the  Lewis  Institute,  and 
in  charge  of  the  department  of  machine  design;  George  O. 
Olson,  president  of  the  Fort  Dearborn  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany, and  O.  A.  Leutweiler,  teacher  at  the  University  of  Illi- 
nois, in  the  department  of  mechanical  engineering. 

All  of  these  experts  had  been  employed  by  the  former 
Board  of  Chicago  Election  Commissioners  and  had  previously 
examined  the  machines  submitted  to  the  present  Board.  They 
had  also  made  thorough  examination  of  the  machine  furnished 
to  the  legislative  committee  by  the  Chicago  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners,  and  their  testimony  is,  in  part,  a  re- 
sume of  that  examination  and  of  their  findings  therein.  Their 
examination  of  the  voting  machine  and  their  testimony  on  tne 
hearing  showed  that  the  Empire  voting  machine  is  not  only 
unsuited  to  meet  election  conditions  in  the  City  of  Chicago, 
but  is  subject  to  various  forms  of  fraudulent  manipulation 
by  the  custodian,  by  the  judges  of  election,  and  by  the  voters 
using  the  machine. 

An  Empire  voting  machine  was  present  in  the  room  in 
which  the  hearings  were  conducted  and  upon  this  machine 
these  experts  undertook  to  demonstrate  the  frauds  to  which 
they  had  discovered  the  Empire  voting  machine  was  sus- 
ceptible. By  the  use  of  an  "angle  steel,"  that  is,  a  thin  piece 
of  steel  bent  at  an  angle,  placed  in  the  slide  for  independent 
voting,  and  which  remained  undetected,  despite  the  most 
searching  examination  by  members  of  the  committee  who 
had  been  notified  in  advance  that  the  machine  had  been  tam- 
pered with,  the  operation  of  the  slide  and  its  use  by  the  voter 
were  prevented. 

It  was  shoAvn  that  judges  of  election,  by  inspection  of  the 


26 

counters  before  and  after  a  voter  had  cast  his  vote  could  see 
how  the  voter  had  voted,  destroying  the  secrecy  of  the  bal- 
lot ;  and  that  by  repeated  inspection  of  the  counters  the  judges 
could  tell  how  the  election  was  going  in  any  precinct. 

In  this  connection,  it  must  be  remembered  that  one  of  the 
defects  in  the  Empire  voting  machine  pointed  out  by  Judge 
Owens'  commission  of  experts  was  "unlimited  inspection  by 
judges"  and  that  the  report  recommended  that  this  defect 
be  remedied. 

It  was  shown  that  the  custodian,  when  setting  up  the  ma- 
chine for  use  at  elections,  could  set  the  counters  of  a  candi- 
date for  any  office  a  number  of  votes  ahead  and  the  counters 
of  his  opponents  a  similar  number  behind,  and  by  use  of 
paper  "zeros"  pasted  over  the  figures  on  the  counter-wheels 
prevent  discovery  of  the  fraud  by  the  election  judges  and  that 
the  mere  operation  of  the  machine  in  the  election  would  des- 
troy all  evidence  of  the  fraud. 

It  was  shown  that  by  a  wire  clip,  or  a  rubber  band,  the 
operation  of  the  voting  keys  could  be  interfered  with  or  pre- 
vented, so  as  to  prevent  the  recording  of  votes  for  the  candi- 
date whose  voting  key  had  been  tampered  with. 

In  short,  the  examination  made  by  the  experts  employed 
by  the  legislative  committee  showed  the  Empire  machine  to 
be  so  susceptible  to  fraudulent  manipulation,  especially  by 
the  custodian,  that  one  of  them.  Prof.  0.  A.  Leutweiler,  tes- 
tified (printed  abstract  page  390)  that,  if  custodian,  he  could 
falsify  any  election. 

Moreover,  regardless  of  its  special  defects  and  great  sus- 
ceptibility to  fraudulent  manipulation,  the  experts  employed 
by  the  committee  agreed  that  the  Empire  voting  machine 
is  not  of  a  type  adapted  to  meet  Chicago  election  conditions. 
The  great  number  of  candidates  at  primary  election;  the  re- 
strictions on  women  voters;  the  cumulative  voting  system, 
peculiar  to  Illinois ;  present  difficulties  all  but  insuperable 
to  this  type  of  voting  machine.  One  of  the  experts  went  so 
far  as  to  say  that  any  voting  machine  which  requires  the 
voter  to  monopolize  the  machine  during  the  casting  of  his 
ballot  cannot  meet  Chicago  election  conditions  because  the 
average  voter  will  take  too  long  a  time  to  vote. 

Our  Supreme  Court  has  already  decided  in  the  case  of 
People,  ex  rel  Hull,  vs.  Taylor,  et  al,  257  Ills,  page  192,  in  an 
opinion  handed  down  December  17,  1912,  that  the  average 
voter  cannot  vote  upon  the  Empire  voting  machine  in  a  min- 
ute. This  was  clearly  shown,  also,  by  the  experimental  voting 
at  the  hearing  of  the  committee. 


27 

Many  of  the  defects  pointed  out  in  the  testimony  of  the 
experts,  employed  by  the  committee,  have,  for  the  sake  of 
brevity,  not  been  described,  but  can  be  found  by  reference 
to  the  abstract  of  testimony  accompanving  this  report,  at 
pages  309  to  393. 

Opposition  to  the  voting  machine  proceedings  of  the  Chi- 
cago Board  of  Election  Commissioners  was,  therefore,  not 
only  practically  the  unanimous  opposition  of  all  who  had 
given  the  voting  machine  and  Chicago  election  conditions 
adequate  or  serious  consideration,  but  it  was  an  opposition 
thoroughly  fortified  with  facts. 

This  was  the  situation  in  the  voting  machine  matter,  when 
the  question  of  entering  into  a  contract  with  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  ma- 
chines came  before  the  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners for  consideration. 

As  before  stated,  the  contract  was  submitted  to  the  Chi- 
cago Board  of  Election  Commissioners  at  its  meeting  of 
July  21st,  1911,  and  Commissioner  Taylor  at  once  moved 
for  its  adoption  and  asked  for  authority  to  execute  it.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  the  last  report  of  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners' experts  had  called  attention  to  a  number  of  defects 
and  suggested  certain  changes  in  the  Empire  voting  machine. 
In  view  of  this  there  was  excellent  reason  for  the  following 
motion  made  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  at  the  meeting  at 
which  the  contract  was.  submitted : 

"Commissioner  Czarnecki:    Let's  get  this  thing  clear; 
does  this  resolution  adopt  and  approve  this  contract? 

Commissioner  Taylor:    Yes,  and  I  want  the  authority 
of  the  majority  of  the  Board  to  execute  this  contract. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki:    Is  it  out  of  order  to  study 
over  this  contract  with  the  view  to  offering  amendment 
to  it!     This  is  the  first  time  I  have  seen  the  contract. 
There  are  things  that  I  might  submit  that  would  meet 
with  your  approval.     There  is  a  penalizing  clause,  and 
there  are  other  things  that  are  missing.    Surely,  gentle- 
men, you  will  give  me  sufficient  time  for  that.     I  ask  it 
and  I  move  it." 
This  motion  of  Commissioner  Czarnecki  received  no  second 
and  he  was  not  afforded  time  to  consider  the  contract  or  to 
offer  amendments. 

In  face  of  this  strong  opposition  to  the  purchase  of  voting 
machines,  inside  and  outside  of  the  commission,  the  majority 
members  of  the  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
proceeded  to  make  a  contract  with  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 


28 

chine  Company  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  machines  at 
a  cost  of  $942,500.  Contrast  this  action  with  that  of  the 
former  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in  regard  to  the 
financial  side  of  the  voting  machine  question.  That  Board 
had  conferred  in  advance  with  the  city  authorities  with  re- 
gard to  the  financing  of  their  contemplated  purchase  of  vot- 
ing machines,  if  a  suitable  machine  should  be  found,  and  had 
asked  for  an  appropriation  of  $100,000  to  cover  any  initial 
purchase  that  might  be  made.  As  all  machines  were  rejected, 
this  appropriation  was  never  used. 

This  action  of  the  former  Board  had  been  brought  espec- 
ially to  the  attention  of  the  present  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners and  among  the  suggestions  offered  by  those  who 
criticized  the  course  of  the  commission  in  regard  to  the  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines — a  suggestion  strongly  urged  in 
the  communication  of  the  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 
and  also,  in  the  form  of  a. motion,  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
— was  that  the  initial  purchase  of  voting  machines  should 
be  limited  to  100  or  120  instead  of  the  1,000  called  for  by  the 
proposed  contract. 

Not  only  this,  but  the  specifications  sent  out  to  bidders 
by  the  commission  itself  provided  that  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  might,  if  it  desired,  purchase  a  smaller  num- 
ber of  machines  than  1,200,  the  number  of  machines  men- 
tioned in  the  specifications. 

No  attention  was  paid  to  these  suggestions  by  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  and  the  motion  of  Commissioner 
Czarnecki,  like  its  predecessors,  received  no  second. 

The  further  suggestion  that  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners confer  with  the  city  authorities  regarding  the 
financing  of  the  voting  machine  purchase,  also  offered  by 
the  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  and  presented  in  the 
form  of  a  motion  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  met  the  same 
fate  and  the  contract  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  Empire  voting 
machines  was  executed  by  the  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  and 
the  delivery  of  voting  machines  by  the  company  to  the  City 
of  Chicago  was  begun. 

In  the  meantime,  other  matters,  which  became  the  subject 
of  investigation  by  the  legislative  committee,  had  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  some  of  the  members  of  the  Illinois  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  These  matters  related  to  the  methods  em- 
ployed by  the  agent  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany in  securing  the  contract  for  the  purchase  of  Empire 
voting  machines  by  the  City  of  Chicago.     It  appeared  that 


29 

this  agent,  a  man  named  H.  W.  Barr,  had  also  acted  as  agent 
for  the  Empire  Company  in  its  negotiations  with  the  authori- 
ties of  Wapello  County,  Iowa,  for  the  purchase  of  voting 
machines  by  that  county.  On  Decoration  Day,  1913,  Hon. 
Thomas  A.  Boyer,  a  member  of  the  Illinois  General  Assembly, 
while  visiting  relatives  at  Washington,  Iowa,  met  Hon.  L.  L. 
Duke,  former  city  attorney  of  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  which  is  sit- 
uated in  Wapello  County.  Upon  learning  that  Mr.  Boyer 
was  a  member  of  the  Illinois  General  Assembly,  Mr.  Duke 
inquired  of  him  whether  he  knew  Mr.  Butts,  Chairman  of 
this  legislative  committee,  who,  a  short  time  previously  had 
introduced  House  Joint  Resolution  23  under  which  this  com- 
mittee has  conducted  its  investigations.  Mr.  Boyer  told  Mr. 
Duke  that  he  knew  Mr.  Butts  very  well,  whereupon  Mr.  Duke 
said,  "I  am  interested  in  this  investigation  that  I  hear  is 
started."  "I  am  attorney  for  three  Ottumwa  men,  who  have 
a  claim  for  $1,500  against  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany, and  I  am  trying  to  collect  it."  "I  believe  I  can  collect 
it,  maybe,  through  a  little  publicity."  Thereupon  Mr.  Duke 
handed  to  Mr.  Boyer  the  statement  which  was  subsequently 
produced  before  this  committee  and  became  a  part  of  the  rec- 
ord of  its  proceedings  and  known  as  "the  Duke  statement." 

The  Duke  statement  is  a  typewritten  paper,  unsigned,  but 
purporting  by  its  text  to  be  the  statement  of  "the  three  Ot- 
tumwa men"  for  whom  Mr.  Duke  was  attorney;  namely, 
Thomas  W.  Pickler,  former  Mayor  of  Ottumwa;  John  W. 
Gray,  former  chief  of  police  of  Ottumwa;  and  Newton  L. 
Arrison,  former  city  clerk  of  Ottumwa. 

The  Duke  statement  thus  received  by  Mr.  Boyer,  Mr.  Boyer 
took  with  him  to  Springfield  when  the  Illinois  General  As- 
sembly resumed  its  sessions  and  there  made  it  known  to  Rep- 
resentative David  E.  Shanahan,  and  subsequently  gave  it  to 
Mr.  Butts,  chairman  of  the  Legislative  Committee,  who 
turned  it  over  to  Mr.  Charles  S.  Deneen  after  his  appoint- 
ment as  counsel  for  the  committee. 

In  view  of  the  contents  of  the  Duke  statement,  the  Legis- 
lative Committee  made  every  possible  effort  to  secure  the 
attendance  of  Messrs.  Pickler,  Gray  and  Arrison  as  wit- 
nesses at  the  hearings  of  the  committee.  Notwithstanding 
these  efforts,  however,  in  which  the  chairman  of  the  commit- 
tee and  its  counsel  went  so  far  as  to  offer  in  behalf  of  the 
committee  to  take  up  the  Empire  Company  contract  with 
these  persons  and  to  reimburse  them  for  their  expense  in 
coming  to  Chicago  to  testify  before  the  Committee,  their  at- 
tendance at  the  Chicago  hearings  could  not  be  secured. 


30 

After  the  failure  of  these  efforts,  the  Duke  statement  was 
offered  in  evidence  by  counsel  for  the  committee.  Its  intro- 
duction was  objected  to  by  Messrs.  Willard  M.  McEwen,  ap- 
pearing for  Hon.  John  E.  Owens,  and  Charles  H.  Mitchell, 
appearing  for  the  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Commissioners. 
The  committee  sustained  their  objection  to  its  introduction 
at  the  time,  but  reserved  for  future  consideration  the  question 
of  its  possible  introduction  at  a  later  time. 

The  securing  of  the  testimony  of  Messrs.  Pickler,  Gray 
and  Arrison  was  deemed  of  such  importance  by  the  commit- 
tee, that  in  a  further  effort  to  secure  it,  a  sub-committee  was 
appointed  to  visit  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  and  induce  them  to  testify 
there  if  possible.  The  sub-committee  visited  Ottumwa  on  Aug- 
ust 11th,  1913,  but  these  witnesses  refused  to  testify  before 
it,  and  the  sub-committee  so  reported  to  the  legislative  com- 
mittee on  August  13th,  1913. 

Thereupon  counsel  for.  the  committee  again  offered  the 
Duke  statement  in  evidence  and  its  admission  was  again  ob- 
jected to  by  Messrs.  McEwen  and  Mitchell  and  also  by  Mr. 
Frank  Walker  who  for  the  first  time  appeared  before  the 
committee  as  "personal  attorney  for  Andrew  M.  Lawrence." 

After  taking  the  matter  under  advisement,  the  committee 
announced  that  for  the  present  the  objections  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Duke  statement  were  sustained,  "With  the 
right,  however,  to  permit  the  matter  to  go  into  evidence  at  any 
time  in  the  future." 

Upon  the  convening  of  the  committee  for  its  meeting  of 
August  14th,  1913,  Mr.  Frank  Walker,  personal  attorney 
for  Andrew  M.  Lawrence,  again  appeared  before  the  commit- 
tee and  asked  permission  to  bring  a  matter  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  committee.  Permission  being  given,  Mr.  Walker 
produced  an  affidavit  made  by  Edward  E.  Marriott,  a  re- 
porter for  the  Chicago  Examiner,  which  he  submitted  for 
consideration  by  the  committee  in  connection  with  its  con- 
sideration of  the  possible  future  admission  of  the  Duke  state- 
ment. The  committee  received  the  affidavit,  but  for  the  pres- 
ent it  was  not  read  or  introduced  in  evidence. 

At  the  session  of  the  committee  of  August  15th,  1913,  Mr. 
S.  E.  Thomason  appeared  before  the  committee  and  asked 
permission  to  make  a  statement.  Permission  being  granted, 
Mr.  Thomason,  who  appeared  as  representative  of  Mr.  James 
Keeley,  manager  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  stated  that  it  had 
been  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Keeley  that  the  com- 
mittee had  under  consideration  the  question  of  the  admis- 
sibility of  the  Duke  statement  and  the  Marriott  affidavit  and 


31 

that  in  behalf  of  the  Chicago  Tribune  he  desired  to  request 
that  the  committee  admit  both  and  that  both  be  made  the 
subject  of  the  fullest  inquiry.  Mr.  Walker  thereupon  joined 
in  the  request.  Mr.  McEwen,  while  insisting  upon  his  ob- 
jection to  the  legal  admissibility  of  the  document,  stated  that 
''If  these  gentlemen  want  to  try  out  another  issue  that  is 
their  business,  not  mine,  and  I  will  endeavor  to  remain  quiet 
while  they  do  it."  Mr.  Mitchell  renewed  his  objection.  The 
Marriott  affidavit  and  the  Duke  statement  were  thereupon 
read  into  evidence,  as  follows : 

State  op  Illinois        I 
CouxTY  OF  Cook  ( 

I,  Edward  E.  Marriott,  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  County  of 
Cook,  State  of  Illinois,  being  duly  sworn,  on  oath  state: 

That  I  was  in  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  on  August  8th,  9th,  11th,  and 
12th,  1913,  and  there  had  interviews  with  John  W.  Gray, 
Thomas  H.  Piekler,  Newton  L.  Arrison,  Lloyd  L.  Duke, 
Charles  A.  Walsh,  Edwin  G.  Moon  and  others,  in  relation  to 
a  statement  made  by  said  Duke  and  given,  by  him,  to  H.  A. 
Boyer,  of  Illinois,  and  offered  in  evidence  before  the  Butts 
Legislative  Investigation  Committee,  in  Chicago. 

Said  John  W.  Gray,  who  was  formerly  Chief  of  Police  of 
Ottumwa,  Iowa,  told  me  that  one  day  in  the  winter  of  1911- 
12  H.  W.  Barr,  agent  for  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany, was  at  the  Ballingall  Hotel  in  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  and  had 
told  him  said  Gray,  Thomas  H.  Piekler,  former  Mayor  of 
Ottumwa,  and  Newton  L.  Arrison,  former  City  Clerk,  the 
real  facts  connected  with  said  voting  machine  contract  in 
Chicago,  purporting  to  be  given  in  said  statement  given  by 
Duke  to  Boyer. 

Gray  said  to  me: 

"Barr  was  in  the  Ballingall  Hotel,  and  Piekler,  Arri- 
son and  I  were  with  him,  trying  to  get  him  to  pay  us 
money  which  was  due  from  him  to  us  on  a  contract  for 
services  which  we  had  rendered  in  introducing  Barr  to 
Charles  A.  Walsh,  of  Ottumwa,  and  getting  Walsh  to 
help  the  Empire  Company  in  Chicago. 

Barr  told  us  that  he  had  paid  big  money  to  get  the 
contract  but  that  the  big  mistake  he  had  made  was  not 
to  give  fifty  thousand  dollars  to  Jim  Keeley,  publisher 
of  the  Tribune.  Barr  said,  'Jim  Keeley  demanded  fifty 
thousand  dollars,  but  we  refused  to  pay  him.    If  he  had 


32 

got  that  there  wouki  not  have  been  any  of  this  trouble 
with  the  voting  machine  contract.  The  Tribune  and 
the  others  papers  had  always  been  for  voting  machines 
and  they  would  never  have  thought  of  fighting  the  con- 
tract if  the  Tribune  had  not  started  trouble  when  we 
refiised  Keeley's  demand  for  fifty  thousand  dollars.' 

Charles  S.  Deneen  and  other  big  politicians  are  trying 
hard  to  get  Pickler,  Arrison  and  me  to  testify,  so  as  to 
hurt  Lawrence,  politically,  in  Chicago.  When  Governor 
Deneen  came  here  last  Sunday  night.  Newt  Arrison  and 
I  got  word  from  him  to  be  at  the  depot  and  we  got  there 
before  the  11 :20  train  from  Omaha  got  in.  ■  Deneen  had 
been  in  Omaha  and  had  seen  Pickler,  but  he  could  not 
get  Pickler  to  testify  in  the  way  he  wanted  so  he  wired 
us  to  meet  him.  Deneen  tried  every  way  to  get  me  and 
Arrison  to  testify  against  A.  M.  Lawrence.  He  tried  to 
get  us  to  back  up  the  statements  made  in  the  paper  given 
by  Duke  to  Boyer.  Deneen  said  he  understood  we  claimed 
a  thousand  dollars  from  Barr,  but  he  offered  to  assume 
the  thousand  dollar  contract  made  by  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company,  and  pay  us  that  thousand  dollars 
and  another  thousand  dollars,  too,  as  well  as  all  our  ex- 
penses. He  told  us,  'If  you  fellows  will  tell  the  whole 
story  like  it  is  in  that  Duke  statement  we  will  have  enough 
to  drive  Andy  Lawrence  out  of  Chicago.' 

Deneen  and  Butts  put  up  a  thousand  dollars  in  a  Nat- 
ional bank  for  us,  to  induce  us  to  do  what  he  asked. 

My  name  is  mentioned  in  the  papers  as  being  one  of 
those  referred  to  by  Duke  in  the  statement  he  gave  to 
Boyer,  but  I  tell  you  that  I  never  went  to  Chicago  on  the 
voting  machine  contract  and  never  saw  Andrew  M.  Law- 
rence in  my  life.    Lloyd  L.  Duke's  statement  is  full  of 
lies.     He  is  a  crooked  lawyer  and  has  betrayed  the  in- 
terests of  Arrison,  Pickler  and  myself,  who  were  his 
clients.    He  ought  to  be  disbarred  and  we  will  try  to  have 
him  disbarred.    He  gave  out  this  lying  statement  after 
he  knew  our  legitimate  business  claim  against  Barr  had 
been  settled." 
In  interviews  which  I  had  with  said  Newton  L.  Arrison  at 
the  Hotel  Ballingall  and  the  Hotel  Laclede  and  elsewhere  in 
Ottumwa,  said  Arrisan  said  to  me: 

"I  was  the  one  of  us  three  who  went  to  Chicago  in 
January,  1911,  to  see  Charley  Walsh  and  get  him  to  help 
H.  W.  Barr  on  the  voting  machine  contract,  but  it's  a 
big  lie  for  Duke  to  say,  or  imply,  in  his  statement  given 


33 

to  Boyer,  that  I  know  anything  about  Andrew  M.  Law- 
rence getting  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  or  any  other 
amount.  I  never  saw  Andrew  M.  Lawrence  in  Chicago, 
in  1911,  when  I  went  there  to  introduce  Barr  to  Walsh, 
and  I  never  spoke  to  A.  M.  Lawrence  about  the  voting 
machine  matter.  I  have  not  seen  him  at  all  for  more  than 
three  years. 

I  hate  Andy  Lawrence  worse  than  poison  and  would 
like  to  send  him  to  hell  if  I  could  do  it  without  harming 
my  friend  Barr. 

If  it  wasn't  for  my  friendship  for  Barr  and  my  love 
of  fair  play,  I  could  hardly  resist  the  offers  of  big  money 
that  are  made  by  Deneen  and  others  to  any  of  us  fellows 
who  will  go  to  Chicago  and  back  up  the  things  put  forth 
in  that  paper  that  Duke  gave  to  Boyer. 

Big  money  is  being  offered  us  and  all  sorts  of  induce- 
ments. If  you  knew  of  the  work  done  here  in  Ottumwa 
this  last  week,  by  George  E.  Brennan  of  the  Roger  Sulli- 
van crowd,  to  get  us  to  go  against  Lawrence,  you  would 
go  up  in  the  air. 

No  one  should    believe    Duke's    statement.     He    has 
shown  himself  in  his  true  colors  by  giving  out  an  un- 
signed, unsworn  statement,  telling  about  our  claim,  after 
it  had  been  settled,  though  he  was  too  cowardly  to  put 
our  names  in  the  statement.    If  there  is  any  way  of  get- 
ting him  disbarred,  we  will  do  it.     He  ought  to  be  dis- 
barred. ' ' 
I  had  several  interviews  with  former  Judge  Elwin  G.  Moon, 
counsel  for  H.  W.  Barr  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany', and  member  of  the  law  firm  of  Gilmore  &  Moon.  These 
interviews  were  had  in  Gilmore  &  Moon's  offices,  on  Main 
Street,  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  on  August  9th  and  11th.    Moon  said 
to  me: 

"Newton  L.  Arrison  and  J.  W.  Gray  have  each  and 
severally  told  me  the  same  story,  to  the  effect  that  H.  W. 
Barr,  agent  for  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company, 
told  them  in  his  room,  at  the  Hotel  Ballingall,  Ottumwa, 
one  night  in  the  winter  of  1911-12,  that  it  would  cost 
him  a  big  sum  to  get  the  Chicago  voting  machine  contract 
for  the  Empire  Company. 

H.  W.  Barr  had  told  the  same  story  to  me  and  to  my 
law  partner,  Merrill  C.  Gilmore,  in  our  office  in  Ottumwa. 
Barr  said  to  us,  'The  mistake  we  made  was  when-w^e  re- 
fused to  give  Jim  Keeley,  of  the  Tribune,  the  fifty  tliou- 


34 

sand  he  asked  and  then  we  would  not  have  had  this  fight 
against  the  Empire  voting  machine  contract  in  Chicago. ' 
I  have  a  thousand  dollars  in  my  possession,  given  me 
by  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  to  be  turned 
over  to  Pickler,  Arrison  and  Gray,  in  payment  for  their 
services  to  Barr.  Their  claim  against  Barr  is  all  set- 
tled, and  Lloyd  L.  Duke's  statement  is  all  wrong. 

Charles  S.  Deneen  was  in  Ottumwa  last  Sunday  night 
making  strenuous  efforts  to  get  Arrison  and  Gray  to  go 
to  Chicago  and  back  up  statements  made  by  Duke  in  re- 
gard to  Lawrence  and  Barr  in  the  voting  machine  con- 
tract. Deneen  told  Arrison  and  Gray  that  if  they  would 
testify  in  Chicago  he,  Deneen,  would  assume  the  one 
thousand  dollar  payment  promised  by  the  Empire  Com- 
pany, and  pay  them  lots  of  money  besides.  Deneen,  Butts 
and  the  other  politicians  have  fifteen  thousand  dollars 
to  spend  to  get  the  testimony,  and  a  few  thousands  more. 

.  He  also  told  them  that,  if  they  would  back  up  Duke 's  state- 
ment it  would  be  all  he  needed  to  drive  A.  M.  Lawrence 
out  of  Chicago." 

Charles  A.  Walsh,  of  Ottumwa,  whose  name  is  mentioned 
in  the  statement  given  by  Duke  to  Boyer,  said  to  me : 

"In  December,  J.911,  I  promised  Arrison,  Gray  and 
Pickler  that  I  would  help  them  to  get  H.  W.  Barr  intro- 
duced at  the  Chicago  Election  Commissioners'  office, 
where  he  wished  to  apply  for  a  voting  machine  contract. 
Arrison  came  from  Ottumwa  to  Chicago,  in  January, 
1911,  and  took  me  to  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel  where  I  met 
Barr.  Afterwards  I  introduced  Barr  to  Chief  Clerk 
Stuart  of  the  election  board.  Barr  wanted  me  to  intro- 
duce him  to  Andrew  M.  Lawrence  and  I  asked  Mr.  Law- 
rence if  he  would  meet  Barr.  Mr.  Lawrence  asked  me, 
'Who  is  Barr! '  I  answered  that  he  was  a  representative 
of  one  of  the  companies  that  manufacture  voting  ma- 
chines and  was  seeking  to  place  an  order  in  Chicago. 
Mr.  Lawrence  replied  that  he  would  not  see  any  of  the 
voting  machine  men  or  have  anything  to  do  with  them. 
On  two  or  three  subsequent  occasions,  when  Barr  later 
asked  me  to  approach  A.  M.  Lawrence  and  arrange  for 
an  interview,  Mr.  Lawrence  again  positively  and  em- 
phatically refused  to  meet  Barr.  Barr  and  Lawrence 
were  never  together  in  my  presence  at  any  time,  and  to 
my  knowledge,  Barr  never  met  Lawrence. 

This  statement,  given  by  Duke  to  Boyer,  is  part  of  a 
political  plot  and  is  full  of  lies.    If  any  money  was  paid 


35 

by  the  Empire  Company  it  was  not  to  Lawrence.  Barr 
told  me  that  Anthony  Czarnecki  sent  several  messengers 
to  him,  Barr,  at  different  times,  saying  that,  if  Czarnecki 
were  taken  care  of  in  a  money  way,  the  fight  against  the 
Empire  Company  would  be  ended." 
(Signed)  Edward  E.  Marriott. 

Subscribed  and  s\vorn  to  before  me  this  13th  day  of  Aug- 
ust, 1913. 

(Signed)  E.  J.  Bangs, 

(notarial  seal)  Notary  Public. 

My  commission  expires  January  18,  1914. 

The  Duke  Statement. 

"We  have  lived  in  Ottumwa  for  thirty-five  years,  fifty 
years,  and  fifty-five  years,  respectively. 

That  we  first  became  acquainted  with  H.  W.  Barr  of 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  about  four  or  five 
years  ago.  That  after  this  time  an  attempt  was  made 
to  sell  Wapello  County  voting  machines  and  the  deal 
would  have  been  made  had  it  not  been  for  a  protest  on  the 
part  of  the  citizens  of  this  city  going  in  a  delegation 
to  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  Wapello  County. 

About  two  years  ago  H.  W.  Barr  of  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company  stated  that  he  believed  that  he 
could  sell  his  voting  machines  to  the  City  of  Chicago, 
provided  he  could  secure  influence  with  the  Hearst-Harri- 
son people  and  especially  if  he  could  secure  the  influence 
of  Andy  Lawrence.  He  said  he  was  satisfied  that  unless 
he  could  get  in  contact  with  and  acquainted  with  Law- 
rence and  the  Hearst  people  he  could  not  make  the  deal. 
We  informed  him  that  we  believed  we  knew  how  he  could 
get  acquainted,  the  deal  might  be  accomplished  through 
Charles  Walsh,  who  at  that  time  was  connected  with  the 
Hearst  people.  Barr  stated  that  in  the  event  he  was 
able  to  make  a  contract  he  would  pay  us  fifteen  hundred 
dollars. 

In  January  we  selected  one  of  our  number  and  we  and 
Barr  agreed  that  it  would  perhaps  be  best  for  only  one 
of  us  to  go  to  Chicago. 

After  the  consultation  with  us  in  Ottumwa,  H.  W.  Barr 
wired  me  from  Chicago  to  come  to  Chicago  the  next  day. 
I  think  it  was  on  January  7th,  on  Tuesday  or  Wednesday, 
I  went  to  Chicago.    Barr  met  me  at  the  Union  Station 


36 

and  we  went  to  the  Examiner  office  and  I  walked  into 
the  Examiner  office  while  Barr  went  to  the  Grand  Pacific 
Hotel.  I  went  into  the  Examiner  office  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  Charles  Walsh  and  after  a  short  time  Walsh 
and  I  went  to  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel.  I  then  introduced 
H.  W.  Barr  to  Walsh.  We  stayed  there  all  afternoon 
talking  about  the  best  method  to  proceed  to  get  the  ma- 
chine i^laced  in  the  City  of  Chicago.  Walsh  said  he  would 
get  Barr  in  connection  with  Andy  Lawrence  and  other 
prominent  men  in  the  Hearst  aggregation.  Walsh  took 
us  to  the  Election  Commissioners'  office  and  introduced 
us. 

Before  leaving  Chicago,  I  asked  Barr  if  I  had  accom- 
plished what  he  expected  of  me.  Barr  said  yes,  I  had 
delivered  the  goods  and  done  more  than  he  had  expected 
and  that  he  was  satisfied. 

It  was  in  the  following  fall,  sometime,  that  Barr  came 
to  Ottumwa  to  try  to  reopen  the  matter  concerning  the 
sale  of  machines  to  Wapello  County. 

He  said  he  would  now  tell  us  about  how  he  managed 
to  get  the  contract  for  the  sale  of  the  machines  in  Chi- 
cago. He  said  it  had  cost  him  a  great  deal  more  money 
than  he  had  expected.  He  and  Walsh  had  a  number  of 
meetings  every  day  for  several  days  and  which  finally 
resulted  in  a  meeting  with  Andy  Lawrence.  Barr  then 
set  forth  his  proposition  with  regard  to  the  sale  of  the 
machines. 

For  some  time,  Barr  stated,  they  could  not  get  together 
or  come  to  an  understanding  with  Lawrence.  Finally, 
Barr  said,  we  made  out  a  list  of  expenditures  necessary 
in  order  to  make  the  deal  and  placed  it  before  Lawrence. 
It  was  a  list  of  the  amounts  that  would  have  to  be  paid 
to  different  parties  for  their  influence  to  consummate  the 
deal.  Walsh  was  on  the  list  for  fourteen  thousand  dol- 
lars, and  Lawrence  for  eighty-five  thousand  dollars,  as  I 
remember  the  amounts.  The  list  was  then  revised  by 
Lawrence.  He  came  to  Walsh's  name  and  the  fourteen 
thousand  dollars  and  stated  to  Walsh  that  he  wanted  to 
know  why  Walsh  was  to  have  that  amount  of  money, 
that  Walsh  could  not  deliver  anything.  Walsh  then 
said,  'Put  the  fourteen  thousand  over  in  the  Lawrence 
column.'  When  the  list  was  finally  completed,  Lawrence 
was  to  have  one  hundred  and  five  thousand  dollars.  Barr 
said  that  the  deal  had  cost  him  something  like  two  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  to  place  the  machine  in  Chicago. 


37 

Barr  said  he  had  already  drawn  out  about  one  hundred 
and  eighty  thousand  dollars  from  Chicago  and  that  he 
had  paid  out  more  than  that.  He  said  he  also  had  to 
fix  up  some  matters  with  the  Gray  Wolves  in  order  to 
keep  them  quiet.  He  said  he  was  going  to  ask  his  com- 
pany to  make  a  further  appropriation  of  ten  thousand 
dollars  to  take  care  of  some  additional  claims. 

Further  facts  will  be  given  later  and  each  of  the  details 
with  reference  to  exact  dates  and  corroborating  circum- 
stances will  also  be  given. ' ' 
It  appears  from  the  testimony  of  J.  P.  Townsend,  hotel 
manager  of  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel,  Chicago,  that  the  records 
of  that  hotel  show  that  on  January  11,  1911,  Newton  Arrison 
of  Ottumwa  had  a  room  at  that  hotel  which  was  charged  to 
and  paid  for  by  Mr.  H.  W.  Barr,  whom  the  witness  knew  as 
agent  for  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company. 

It  also  appears  from  the  testimony  that  Mr.  Charles  A. 
Walsh  of  Ottumwa,  mentioned  in  the  Duke  statement,  as 
connected  with  the  Chicago  Examiner,  was  a  member  of  the 
political  organization  known  as  the  Independence  League, 
later  the  Independent  Party,  which  was  supported  by  the 
Chicago  Examiner ;  that  Commissioner  Howard  S.  Taylor  had 
been  a  writer  of  articles  for  the  Chicago  Examiner  before 
his  appointment  as  election  commissioner  upon  the  recommen- 
dation of  Mr.  Andrew  M.  Lawrence  and  had  also  been  nat- 
ional committeeman  and  later  candidate  for  United  States 
Senator  of  the  Independent  Party;  that  Charles  H.  Mitchell, 
attorney  for  the  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 
was  candidate  for  State's  Attorney  of  the  Independence 
League,  the  predecessor  of  the  Independent  Party,  and  had 
been  intimately  associated  with  Commissioner  Howard  S. 
Taylor,  Mr.  Charles  A.  Walsh  and  Mr.  Andrew  M.  Lawrence ; 
and  that  Mr.  William  H.  Stuart,  chief  clerk  of  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners,  had  been  employed  by  the  Chicago 
Examiner  before  his  appointment  to  that  office. 

At  the  session  of  the  committee  of  August  19th,  1913,  Mr. 
James  Keeley  of  the  Chicago  Tribune  appeared  and  testified 
that  he  did  not  know  Mr.  H.  W.  Barr;  that  he  had  met  him 
but  once,  in  the  office  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  and  then,  with- 
out knowing  that  it  was  Mr.  Barr,  or  who  Mr.  Barr  was; 
that  this  meeting  was  subsequent  to  the  making  of  the  Chi- 
cago voting  machine  contract ;  and  that  he  had  never  had  any 
conversation  with  Mr.  Barr  regarding  the  payment  of  $50,000 
or  any  other  sum  of  money  in  connection  with  the  Chicago 
voting  machine  contract  as  related  in  the  Marriott  affidavit. 


38 

At  the  same  hearing,  Mr.  Oscar  Hewitt,  reporter  for  the 
Chicago  Tribune,  also  testified  that  after  the  passage  of  the 
resolution  for  the  making  of  the  Chicago  contract,  Mr.  Barr 
sought  an  introduction  through  him  to  Mr.  Keeley. 

Mr.  E.  S.  Beck,  managing  editor  of  the  Chicago  Tribune, 
testified  corroborating  in  all  respects  Mr.  Keeley 's  testimony 
with  relation  to  his  own  interview  with  Mr.  Barr. 

Mr.  Charles  Gotthart,  reporter  for  the  Chicago  Tribune, 
testified  that  he  had  visited  Ottumwa  from  August  15th  to 
August  18th,  1913,  and  had  interviewed  various  persons  re- 
garding statements  contained  in  the  Marriott  affidavit;  that 
Mr.  Gray  had  stated  to  him  that  he  had  never  known  there 
was  such  a  man  as  Mr.  Keeley  until  he  saw  the  fact  stated 
in  the  Marriott  affidavit  and  that  the  Marriott  affidavit  was 
"a  pack  of  lies;"  that  Mr.  Arrison  denied  the  statement  at- 
tributed to  him  in  the  Marriott  affidavit  that  big  offers  of 
money  had  been  made  to  him,  Pickler,  and  Gary  to  come  to 
Chicago  and  back  up  the  Duke  statement,  and  stated  that  all 
he  told  Marriott  was  that  Mr.  Deneen  and  Mr.  Butts  had 
offered  to  take  up  the  Empire  Machine  Company  contract 
and  to  pay  their  expenses  if  they  would  come  to  Chicago  to 
testify;  that  Gray  told  the  witness  that  he  had  received  his 
money  from  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company;  and  that 
Arrison  told  the  witness  he  had  not  received  his  money,  say- 
ing "no,  it  is  over  there  for  me.  It  is  safe  in  Judge  Moon's 
hands. ' ' 

Mr.  George  E.  Brennan  contradicted  in  every  particular 
the  matters  relating  to  him  contained  in  the  Marriott  affidavit 
and  stated  that  he  had  never  been  in  Ottumwa,  Iowa. 

Communications  enclosing  copies  of  the  Marriott  affidavit 
were  sent  by  the  committee  to  Mr.  Merrill  C.  Gillmore,  Ot- 
tumwa, Iowa,  and  to  Hon.  E.  C.  Moon  of  Ottumwa,  and  they 
were  invited  to  appear  as  witnesses  before  the  committee 
in  reference  to  the  matters  set  forth  in  the  Marriott  affidavit, 
and  a  statement  was  received  from  Judge  Moon  contradicting 
seriatim  the  statements  attributed  to  him  in  the  Marriott 
affidavit. 

Telegrams  were  also  sent  to  Mr.  L.  L.  Duke,  Mr.  John  W. 
Gray,  Mr.  Newton  L.  Arrison  and  to  Mr.  Thomas  W.  Pickler 
inviting  them  to  appear  and  testify  in  regard  to  the  Marriott 
affidavit.  None  of  these  persons  appeared,  but  a  letter  was 
received  from  Mr.  Pickler,  addressed  to  Mr.  Deneen  and 
stating  that  "so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  you  never  intimated 
anything  regarding  paying  us  any  money  only  for  the  con- 
tract and  the  telephone  expense." 


39 

The  chairman  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Butts,  also  made  a 
statement  regarding  the  Marriott  affidavit,  which  was  read 
into  the  record  as  follows: 

"The  statements  in  the  affidavit  tiled  with  the  com- 
mittee by  Edward  E.  Marriott  are  false  in  so  far  as  they 
relate  to  Mr.  Deneen  and  myself.  The  facts  are,  when 
it  was  learned  that  a  written  contract  between  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company  and  Messrs.  Thomas  H. 
Pickler,  Newton  L.  Arrison,  and  John  W.  Gray  had  been 
executed  for  $1,000,  it  was  determined  that  Mr.  Deneen 
and  myself  should  interview  the  witnesses  and  ascertain 
whether  or  not  they  would  be  willing  to  assign  the  writ- 
ten contract  to  the  investigating  committee  for  face  value. 
I  deemed  it  wise  that  the  investigating  committee  pur- 
chase this  contract  in  behalf  of  the  State  of  Illinois  so 
that  suit  might  be  instituted  on  it  and  in  that  way  an 
opportunity  secured  to  take  depositions  in  other  states 
in  reference  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  contract. 

Mr.  Pickler  favored  an  assignment  of  the  contract. 
Messrs.  Arrison  and  Gray  desired  to  consult  together 
and  communicate  with  Mr.  Pickler  before  giving  their 
decision.  Later,  Mr.  Pickler  stated  over  the  long  distance 
telephone  that  the  money  had  been  paid  and  the  contract 
was  taken  up  at  Ottumwa.  Our  negotiations  terminated, 
therefore,  necessarily. 

These  are  all  the  facts.  No  money  was  put  in  any 
national  bank  and  no  money  was  offered  to  witnesses 
save  their  expenses  and  the  face  value  of  the  contract." 
Mr.  R.  D.  Bemiss,  a  former  agent  for  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company,  was  also  called  as  a  witness  before  the 
committee  and  testified  in  regard  to  the  expense  accounts 
of  agents  of  that  company,  that  at  one  time  the  company 
paid  the  agents  a  salary  and  in  addition  whatever  amounts 
were  paid  for  outside  assistance  by  such  agents;  that  these 
additional  amounts  for  assistance  were  paid  upon  statements 
made  by  the  agent  to  the  company ;  but  that  later  this  method 
was  abandoned  and  the  agent  was  paid  his  salary  and  a  com- 
mission of  $135  for  each  machine  sold;  that  the  management 
of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  thought  "that  it 
was  better  to  have  a  stipulated  sum  paid  each  agent  and 
that  ended  the  whole  transaction  and  nothing  would  appear 
on  the  books  of  the  company  except  the  fact  that  the  agent 
had  made  the  sale,  his  salary  and  expense  account,  and  then, 
in  addition  to  these  items,  the  $135  per  machine."  Witness 
had  talked  with  H.  W.  Barr,  the  Empire  Company  agent 


40 

who  had  sold  machines  to  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  that  Barr 
said  $135  was  not  enough  for  Chicago. 

In  a  general  way,  the  foregoing  summarizes  the  facts  con- 
stituting the  proceedings  leading  up  to  the  making  of  the 
contract  with  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  so  far 
as  the  committee  was  able  to  elicit  them.  As  already  stated, 
all  of  the  Ottumwa  witnesses  refused  to  appear  before  the 
committee.  Besides  this,  no  response  of  any  kind  was  secured 
to  the  repeated  communications  sent  by  the  committee  and 
its  counsel  to  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  and  its 
president,  Mr.  Carl  F.  Lomb,  and  its  agent,  Mr.  H.  "W.  Barr. 

Immediately  previous  to  the  opening  of  this  investigation, 
the  committee  was  informed  that  Mr.  H.  W.  Barr  lived  in 
Chicago  at  5559  Washington  Avenue,  and  a  summons  was 
issued  by  the  committee  to  be  served  upon  him  at  that  ad- 
dress. Every  attempt  of  the  Sergeant-at-arms  to  serve  it 
was  without  success  and  the  committee  was  informed  that 
Mr.  Barr  had  left  the  city. 

During  the  hearings  one  representative  of  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company,  Mr.  Prank  Keiper,  patent  attorney 
for  the  company,  did  appear  before  the  committee  and  was  ex- 
amined as  a  witness.  He,  however,  knew  nothing  about  the  facts 
of  the  Chicago  voting  machine  purchase.  He  stated  that  im- 
mediately before  leaving  his  home  in  Rochester,  New  York,  for 
the  hearing,  he  had  been  visited  by  Mr.  H.  W.  Barr,  for  whom 
a  subpoena  had  been  issued  by  this  committee,  but  that  neither' 
one  mentioned  the  subject  of  the  voting  machine  investigation, 
nor  did  Mr.  Barr  inform  Mr.  Keiper  whether  he  intended  to 
appear  before  the  committee  as  a  witness.  Mr.  Keiper  also 
knew  Mr.  Carl  F.  Lomb  very  well,  but  had  never  heard  Mr. 
Lomb  say  whether  or  not  he  intended  to  appear  as  a  witness 
before  the  legislative  committee.  Mr.  Keiper  was  also  unable 
to  name  the  stockholders  or  directors  of  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company.  Mr.  Keiper 's  testimony  was  of  a  general 
character.  It  had  no  special  relation  to  and  threw  no  light 
upon  the  subject  of  the  Chicago  investigation  of  voting  ma- 
chine, the  Chicago  contract,  or  the  Chicago  purchase  of  voting 
machines,  except  that  the  witness  estimated  the  cost  of  pro- 
ducing such  a  machine  as  Chicago  purchased  at  from  $400  to 
$500  exclusive  of  overhead  charges;  that  he  admitted  that 
such  a  machine  was  not  large  enough  to  hold  the  Chicago 
primary  ballot  of  1912,  remarking,  however,  that  the  voting 
machine  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Illinois  primary  law ;  and  that 
in  his  opinion  the  fraudulent  manipulation  of  voting  machines 


41 

demonstrated  at  the  hearing  did  not  constitute  a  practical 
objection  to  the  Empire  voting  machine. 

Under  the  contract  made  with  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company,  500  voting  machines  have  been  delivered  to  the  City 
of  Chicago  and  have  been  used  in  Chicago  elections ;  and  the 
subsequent  investigations  of  the  committee  relate  mainly  to 
the  use  of  these  voting  machines  in  Chicago  elections  and 
the  manner  in  which  they  have  stood  the  test  of  meeting  Chi- 
cago election  conditions. 

This  phase  of  the  investigation  was  intended  to  supplement 
the  testimony  of  the  experts  employed  by  the  committee  re- 
garding possible  frauds  on  the  Empire  voting  machine,  and 
the  experiments  in  fraudulent  manipulation  and  fraudulent 
restriction  of  the  machine  demonstrated  by  them  before  the 
committee,  by  testimony  showing  some  practical  experience  in 
the  actual  use  of  voting  machines  in  Chicago. 

Information  had  come  to  counsel  for  the  committee  that 
certain  voters  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  First  Ward,  who 
had  voted  at  the  general  election  of  1912  upon  the  voting  ma- 
chine, had  been  deprived  of  their  votes  for  candidates  for 
the  office  of  State's  Attorney  in  that  election.  The  voting 
machine  returns  from  the  20th  precinct  of  the  First  Ward 
showed  the  following  votes  for  candidates  for  the  office  of 
State's  Attorney:  Einaker,  Republican,  1;  Hoyne,  Democrat, 
42;  Haight,  Progressive,  0;  Cunnea,  Socialist,  0;  Hill,  Pro- 
hibitionist, 0.  Seventeen  witnesses  from  the  precinct  ap- 
peared before  the  committee  and  testified,  that  twelve  of  them 
voted  for  Einaker,  Republican;  four  of  them  for  Cunnea,  So- 
cialist; three  of  them  for  Haight,  Progressive. 

It  was  with  a  view  to  the  subsequent  introduction  of  this 
testimony  and  with  knowledge  of  the  facts  that  voters  in  this 
precinct  had  failed  to  have  their  votes  recorded  by  the  voting 
machine  for  the  candidates  of  their  choice  for  State's  Attor- 
ney, that  the  experiment  of  setting  the  counters  of  one  candi- 
date a  number  of  votes  above  and  another  an  equal  number 
below  "zero"  and  concealing  the  mis-setting  by  paper  zeros 
pasted  over  the  counter-wheels  was  introduced  and  demon- 
strated before  the  Commission.  Wliether  the  experiment  fur- 
nishes the  true  explanation  of  the  loss  of  votes  at  the  election 
of  1912  shown  by  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  is,  of  course, 
a  question;  but  the  loss  of  votes  in  this  precinct  was  a  fact 
and  a  fact  which  the  fraudulent  manipulation  of  the  voting 
machine  counters  demonstrated  by  the  experiment  would  ex- 
plain. In  any  event,  the  voting  machine  was  shown  to  be 
susceptible  to  fraudulent  manipulation,  in  direct  contraven- 


42 

tion  of  the  State  Voting  Machine  Law,  which  provides  that 
the  voting  machine  shall  be  "provided  with  a  lock  or  locks 
by  the  use  of  which  any  movement  of  the  registering  mechan- 
ism is  absolutely  prevented  so  that  it  cannot  he  tampered  with 
or  manipulated  for  any  fraudulent  purpose." 

Other  experiments,  both  by  witnesses,  bystanders,  and  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  showed  conclusively  that  the  average 
voter  cannot  vote  a  split  ticket  on  the  voting  machine  in  one 
minute,  as  required  by  the  voting  machine  law ;  a  fact  which 
was  also  shown  by  the  testimony  of  members  of  the  State 
Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners;  by  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Keiper,  attorney  for  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany, and  by  the  testimony  of  other  witnesses  at  the  hearing. 

Further  evidence  of  defective  or  fraudulent  use  of  the  ma- 
chine, of  a  wholesale  character,  was  supplied  by  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Lawrence  F.  King,  special  custodian  appointed  by  the 
court  to  have  official  charge  and  custody  of  the  returns  of 
the  general  election  of  1912  and  of  the  recount,  of  those  re- 
turns in  the  Hoyne,  Einaker,  Cunnea  contest  over  the  office 
of  State's  Attorney  of  Cook  County,  and  by  that  of  other 
witnesses  who  testified  in  regard  to  changes  of  voting  seals 
between  the  close  of  the  election  of  1912  and  the  opening  of 
the  voting  machines  for  the  recount. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  changing  of  seals  between  the 
election  and  the  recount,  reference  is  made  to  the  changes  read 
by  Witness  King  from  the  record  of  election  returns  made  by 
the  judges  of  election  and  the  record  of  the  recount  taken 
from  the  voting  machines,  the  complete  record  of  which  covers 
many  pages  of  the  testimony  taken  at  the  hearing  and  to 
its  tabulation  which  takes  up  seven  pages  of  the  printed  ab- 
stract of  record. 

To  understand  the  significance  of  these  changes  in  voting 
machine  seals,  it  is  necessai'y  to  know  that  judges  of  election 
in  voting  machine  precincts  are  furnished  by  the  election 
commissioners  with  a  seal  which  they  are  instructed  to  place 
on  the  voting  lever  of  the  machine  used  by  them  at  the  close 
of  the  election  and  to  make  a  record  of  the  number  of  such 
seal  in  the  election  certificates  returned  by  them.  Each  of 
these  seals  bears  the  stamp  of  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners and  its  number  is  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  cus- 
todian of  voting  machines  when  the  machine  is  sent  out  to 
the  election  precinct. 

After  the  election  of  1912,  the  voting  machines  used  in  that 
election  were  returned  thus  sealed  and  locked  in  their  cases 
to  the  voting  machine  storage  warehouse  and  placed  in  the 


43 

custody  of  the  custodian  in  charge  of  voting  machines  who 

testified  that  the  machines  were  not  again  opened,  or  even 

removed  from  the  locked  voting  machine  cases,  until  they 

were  opened  by  the  order  of  court  to  take  off  the  recount 

figures  in  the  Hoyne-Rinaker-Cunea  contest.    "When  they  were 

thus  opened,  it  was  found  that  no  less  than  107  of  the  seals 

placed  upon  the  voting  machines  by  the  election  judges  at  the 

close  of  the  election  were  no  longer  on  the  machines  and  that 

other  seals  had  been  substituted  for  them.     No  explanation 

of  the  substitution  of  seals  was  given  b'y  the  Board  of  Election 

Commissioners,  as  appears  from  the  following  testimony  of 

Commissioner  Czarnecki,  page  632  of  the  printed  abstract) : 

' '  Mr.  Czarnecki :     The  seal  number  read  off.  by  Mr. 

Muldowney  is  the  number  of  the  seal  we  found  on  the 

machine  at  the  time  of  the  recount.    If  a  new  seal  was 

put  on,  we  noted  it  and  the  number. 

The  supposition  was  that  the  seal  put  on  by  the  judges 
was  left  until  the  State's  Attorney  contest.    The  original 
seals  were  placed  on  by  the  judges  in  the  presence  of 
the  clerks,  policemen,  watchers,  and  so  forth,  and  the  new 
seals  were  found  on  the  day  of  the  contest  by  the  com- 
missioners, their  clerks  and  assistants  and  representa- 
tives of  the  contestants,  Cunnea,  Rinaker  and  Hoyne." 
No  explanation  of  this  state  of  affairs  was  asked  for  by 
the   Board   of  Election   Commissioners.     The  following  is 
quoted  from  the  same  page  of  the  printed  abstract: 

"Mr.  McEwen  (to  Mr.  Czarnecki) :    Did  you  ever  ask 
any  of  the  judges  or  clerks  to  explain  the  discrepancy? 
Mr.  Czarnecki:     No,  sir,  we  did  not." 
Similar  voluminous  testimony  given  by  Mr.  Lawrence  F. 
King  regarding  discrepancies  in  voting  machine  election  re- 
turns will  be  found  at  pages  608  to  625  printed  abstract  of 
records,  and  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Michael  F.  McMahon, 
pages  636  to  638,  printed  abstract  of  record. 


Conclusions. 

The  conclusions  reached  by  this  committee  from  the  evi- 
dence submitted  to  it  are : 

1.  That  the  testimony  of  the  experts  employed  by  this 
committee  and  the  experiments  conducted  by  them  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  committee  at  the  hearings,  as  well  as  the  testi- 
mony of  other  witnesses,  show  that  the  voting  machines  pur- 
chased by  the  City  of  Chicago  are  susceptible  to  fraudulent 


44 

manipulation  by  the  custodian,  by  the  judges  of  election,  and 
by  the  voters.  That  the  experiments  showing  possible  mani- 
pulation by  the  voters,  this  committee  does  not  consider  so 
serious  a  sourse  of  practical  fraud  in  elections  conducted 
with  voting  machines  as  those  possible  by  judges  of  election 
and  by  the  custodian  of  voting  machines;  especially  the  lat- 
ter. The  voting  machines  are  in  the  sole  care  and  custody  of 
the  custodian  during  the  period  of  preparation  of  the  voting 
machines  for  use  in  election.  Means  of  fraudulent  manipula- 
tion of  voting  machines  during  this  time  were  clearly  pointed 
out  by  the  experts.  After  the  elections  the  voting  machines 
again  pass  into  the  custody  of  the  custodian,  affording  abun- 
dant opportunity  for  the  destruction  of  any  evidence  of  fraud- 
ulent manipulation,  had  any  been  practiced.  The  integrity 
of  voting  machines  is  not,  in  the  opinion  of  this  committee, 
sufficiently  safeguarded  by  mechanical  or  other  methods  of 
protection  against  fraud. 

2.  That  the  testimony  with  regard  to  the  substitution  of 
seals  showed  wholesale  violations  of  the  law  as  well  as  of 
the  rules  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in  the  elec- 
tion of  1912.  The  Voting  Machine  Law  provides  that  after 
the  judges  of  election  have  taken  off  the  record  of  the  votes 
cast  on  voting  machines,  "thereafter  the  machines  shall  re- 
main locked  for  a  period  of  at  least  thirty  days  unless  other- 
wise ordered  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction."  As  be- 
fore stated,  the  judges  of  election  in  voting  machine  precincts 
were  directed  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  to 
seal  the  voting-lever  of  the  machine  at  the  close  of  the  elec- 
tion with  a  numbered  seal  provided  for  the  purpose  and  place 
and  lock  the  voting  machine  in  its  place.  Nevertheless,  the 
evidence  showed  that  these  voting  machine  cases  had  been 
unlocked,  the  machines  removed  from  their  cases,  the  seals 
broken  open  and  other  seals  substituted  for  them.  The  fear 
of  the  law  was  not  enough  to  prevent  these  wholesale  viol- 
ations, nor  was  the  watchfulness  of  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  sufficient  to  detect  them.  There  was  an  all 
but  total  absence  of  protection  of  the  integrity  of  the  ballot 
in  the  voting  machine  districts. 

3.  The  discrepancies  between  the  returns  of  elections  from 
voting  machine  precincts  as  shown  by  the  judges'  certificates, 
and  the  returns  taken  directly  from  the  machines  at  the  time 
of  the  recount,  is  another  example  of  the  failure  of  the  voting 
machine  to  guard  the  integrity  of  the  ballot.  In  regard  to 
this  failure  it  may  be  said  that  the  discrepancies  were  attri- 
butable, not  to  the  voting  machine,  but  to  the  neglect  of  the 


45 

judges  and  clerks  of  election.  This  may  be  true,  but  one  of 
the  defects  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine,  pointed  out  in  the 
hearing  before  the  committee  was  that  it  did  not  sufficiently 
exclude  errors  by  the  * '  human  element. ' '  Among  these  oppor- 
tunities for  error,  the  necessity  for  taking  off  separately  and 
subsequently  adding  the  split  vote  and  the  straight  vote,  made 
necessary  in  the  Empire  voting  machine  by  the  absence  of 
a  party-lever,  was  one  of  the  most  important.  It  should  have 
been  of  great,  if  not  of  controlling  importance  in  determining 
the  question  of  purchasing  the  Empire  voting  machine. 

4.  The  failure  of  judges  of  election  in  voting  machine  pre- 
cincts to  fill  out  their  election  certificates,  also  showed  that 
the  voting  machine  is  not  sufficiently  safeguarded  against  the 
carelessness  or  dishonesty  of  election  officials,  and  that  in  the 
hands  of  careless  or  dishonest  officials  the  voting  machine 
furnishes  absolutely  no  protection  to  the  integrity  of  the  rec- 
ord of  votes  cast  or  against  the  fraudulent  manipulation  of 
the  voting  machine  by  judges,  clerks,  custodians  or  anybody 
who  has  access  to  the  machines. 

5.  The  evidence  taken  at  the  hearing  showed  that  the  Em- 
pire voting  machine  was  not  capable  of  accommodating  the 
Chicago  primary  ballot.  A  fact  of  such  vital  importance  in 
the  consideration  of  the  question  of  purchasing  voting  ma- 
chines for  the  City  of  Chicago,  should  have  been  ascertained 
by  the  Election  Commissioners  before  any  contract  was  en- 
tered into  with  the  Empire  Company  and  should  have  been 
decisive  against  the  purchase  of  Empire  voting  machines. 

6.  The  evidence  at  the  hearings,  both  the  testimony  of 
witnesses  and  the  experiments  conducted  on  the  voting  ma- 
chine, showed  that  the  average  voter  cannot  vote  a  split  ticket 
on  the  Empire  voting  machine  in  one  minute,  as  provided  in 
the  Illinois  Voting  Machine  Law,  which  requires  "that  each 
voter  can  understandingly  and  within  the  jjeriod  of  one  min- 
ute, cast  his  vote  for  all  candidates  of  his  choice." 

In  this  connection  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  experts 
employed  by  the  Chicago  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
and  Judge  Owens  to  investigate  voting  machines  had,  in  their 
report  on  the  Empire  voting  machine,  called  special  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  "Because  of  the  absence  of  a  party  lever, 
which,  in  other  machines  operates  each  of  the  individual  keys 
of  that  party,  split  voting  with  the  Empire  must  be  done  by 
pulling  down  individually  the  keys  which  represent  the  can- 
didates to  be  voted  for,  and  this,  on  a  70-key  board  will 
scarcely  be  done  within  one  minute's  time  permitted  to  the 
voter  in  the  voting  booth." 


46 

It  may  also  be  recalled  that  subsequent  to  the  purchase 
of  the  Empire  voting  machine,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois, 
in  its  decision  already  cited,  found  "As  a  matter  of  fact, 
we  find  that  the  machine  does  not  comply  with  the  law  in  en- 
abling the  voter  understandingly  to  cast  his  vote  in  one  min- 
ute." 

The  fact  of  the  machine's  non-compliance  with  this  pro- 
vision of  the  State  Voting  Machine  Law  was  known  to  the 
Election  Commissioners.  It  had  been  brought  to  their  atten- 
tion officially  in  the  report  made  to  them  by  the  experts  em- 
ployed by  themselves.  It  was  of  itself  sufficient  to  decide  the 
question  whether  Empire  voting  machines  should  be  pur- 
chased by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  for  use  in 
Chicago  elections.  The  ignoring  of  this  fact  was  an  instance 
of  gross  official  carelessness  and  of  disregard  of  the  ordinary 
principles  of  business  prudence  which  might  very  properly 
be  denominated  a  serious  disregard  of  official  duty. 

7.  Failure  to  give  due  consideration  to  the  reports  of 
previous  investigations  of  voting  machines  by  the  former 
Chicago  Election  Commissioners,  was  another  serious  in- 
stance of  lack  of  proper  caution  on  the  part  of  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  in  its  consideration  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine question.  The  uniform  rejection  of  voting  machines 
Avhich  had  followed  the  prolonged  investigations  of  the  pre- 
vious Board  should  have  counseled  extreme  caution  and  ought 
to  have  been  matter  for  the  most  thorough  discussion  by  the 
present  Board,  instead  of  being  absolutely  ignored  as  shown 
by  the  minutes  of  its  proceedings  in  the  voting  machine  mat- 
ter, as  well  as  by  the  testimony  of  the  Commissioners  given 
at  the  hearings  before  the  legislative  committee. 

8.  The  failure  and  refusal  of  the  Chicago  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  to  confer  with  the  authorities  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  regarding  the  financing  of  the  proposed  purchase 
of  voting  machines,  in  advance  of  entering  into  the  contract 
with  the  Empire  Company,  which  is  all  the  more  remarkable 
when  contrasted  with  the  action  of  the  former  Board,  is  an- 
other instance  of  official  carelessness  justly  deserving  criti- 
cism, if  not  condemnation. 

9.  The  neglect  of  the  obvious  precaution,  dictated  by  con- 
siderations of  business  caution  as  well  as  official  prudence, 
to  limit  the  initial  purchase  to  a  comparatively  small  number 
of  machines  and  to  put  machines  thus  purchased  to  a  de- 
cisive test  in  Chicago  elections,  both  primary  and  general, 
cannot  easily  be  reconciled  with  a  proper  regard  for  the  in- 


47 

terests  of  the  City  of  Chicago  or  the  safeguarding  of  its  elec- 
tions. 

Recommendations. 

1.  That  the  contract  made  by  the  Chicago  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  with  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany should  be  cancelled. 

2.  In  view  of  the  evidence  submitted  and  the  experiments 
demonstrated  before  the  committee,  the  committee  believes 
that  the  Illinois  Voting  Machine  Law  should  be  repealed  or 
amended. 

Lucas  I.  Butts, 

Chairman. 
RoBEKT  S.  Jones, 
J.  H.  Jayne, 
R.  J.  Barr, 
F.  A.  Landee, 
John  M.  Chamberlin, 
Edward  J.  King. 


Report  or  Portion  of  the  Members  of  the  Legislative  Vot- 
ing Machine  Investigation  Committee,  this  Report  Being 
Concurred  In  by  Senators  Canaday,  Campbell  and  Shaw 
AND  Representatives  Garesche  and  Kasserman. 

The  committee  appointed  under  House  Joint  Resolution 
No.  23,  of  the  48th  General  Assembly,  consisted  of : 

Rep.  Lucas  I.  Butts,  Peoria,  Chairman. 

Sen.  P.  C.  Campbell,  Xenia,  Secretary. 

Sen.  Richard  J.  Barr,  Joliet. 

Sen.  J.  M.  Chamberlin,  Jr.,  East  St.  Louis. 

Sen.  Stephen  D.  Canaday,  Hillsboro. 

Sen.  Willis  R.  Shaw,  Decatur. 

Sen.  Frank  A.  Landee,  Moline. 

Rep.  Ferdinand  A.  Garesche,  Madison. 

Rep.  J.  H.  Jayne,  Monmouth. 

Rep.  Robert  S.  Jones,  Flora. 

Rep.  Edward  J.  King,  Galesburg. 

Rep.  John  Kasserman,  Newton. 
Pursuant  to  the  resolution  the  committee  met  in  Spring- 
field June  30,  1913,  and  organized  by  electing  Lucas  I.  Butts, 
Chairman,  and  F.  C.  Campbell,  Secretary.  At  a  meeting  in 
Chicago  on  about  July  8,  1913,  ex-Governor  Charles  S.  De- 
neen  was  selected  as  attorney  for  the  committee,  and  at  the 


48 

public  hearings  thereafter  held  Hon.  W.  M.  McEwen,  of  Chi- 
cago, appeared  as  attorney  for  Judge  Owens  and  Hon. 
Charles  H.  Mitchell  as  attorney  for  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  in  the  City  of  Chicago. 

The  taking  of  testimony  was  begun  on  July  22,  1913,  and 
continued  from  time  to  time  and  concluded  on  April  28,  1914. 
In  all  about  thirty  days  were  spent  and  about  3,800  typewrit- 
ten pages  of  testimony  taken,  many  witnesses  being  exam- 
ined. 

At  the  time  the  hearings  were  closed  at  Chicago  on  April 
28,  1914,  it  was  arranged  that  briefs  and  arguments  should 
be  made  by  the  respective  attorneys  and  mailed  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the.  committee  within  six  weeks  and  the  committee 
was  then  to  meet  and  decide  upon  what  report  was  to  be  made 
to  the  Legislature.  No  brief  and  argument  was  submitted 
to  the  members  of  the  committee,  and  the  committee  was 
never  convened  until  Tuesday,  June  1,  1915,  the  members 
being  notified  by  wire  of  that  meeting  on  Saturday,  May  29, 
1915.  Several  members  of  tlie  committee  were  so  unsophisti- 
cated as  to  think  the  committee  itself  was  empowered  to  de- 
cide on  the  kind  of  report  which  should  be  made  and  that 
when  the  decision  was  reached  the  attorney  for  the  committee 
should  draft  the  report  accordingly.  Instead,  however,  the 
members  found  when  the  meeting  of  June  1,  1915,  was  con- 
vened that  a  report,  including  findings,  conclusions  and  rec- 
ommendations had  already  been  drafted  by  the  attorney  for 
the  committee  and  the  members  of  tlie  committee  were  asked 
simply  to  sign  their  names  to  the  report — perhaps  a  useless 
formality — as  no  reason  was  given  why  their  signatures  were 
required  to  a  report  in  which  they  had  no  part  in  preparing. 

The  full  membership  of  the  committee  was  not  present  at 
this  meeting  and  a  majority  of  those  present  favored  delay- 
ing the  making  of  a  report  until  such  time  as  would  permit 
them  to  give  the  matter  attention  and  consideration.  At  the 
suggestion  of  the  Chairman,  however,  who  explained  that 
members  of  the  committee  not  now  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture, had  been  notified  of  the  meeting,  were  on  their  way  to 
Springfield  and  would  arrive  sometime  during  the  day  or 
night  of  June  first,  the  meeting  was  adjourned  until  the  fol- 
lowing morning  at  eight  o'clock.  At  this  meeting  a  motion  to 
postpone  consideration  of  the  matter  until  Thursday,  June 
10,  1915,  at  eight  o'clock  P.  M.  prevailed.  Against  this  mo- 
tion the  attorney  for  the  committee  argued  that  the  legislature 
might  adjourn  in  the  meantime,  and  that  as  it  was  necessary 
to  report  to  this  session  of  the  legislature  the  report  should 


49 

be  made  at  once,  apparently  forgetting  that  a  full  year  had 
elapsed  since  the  time  the  committee  had  arranged  to  have 
its  meeting  to  give  a  report  consideration. 

Notwithstanding  this  action  of  the  committee  in  postponing 
consideration  of  the  matter,  the  newspapers  had  been  fur- 
nished with  copies  of  the  report  prep8red  ny  the  attorney  for 
the  committee  and  the  conclusions  and  recommendation  con- 
tained in  that  report  were  published  in  the  Chicago  dailies 
on  June  2,  1915.  Just  why  the  attorney  for  the  committee 
felt  called  upon  to  usurp  the  functions  of  the  committee  in 
making  findings,  conclusions  and  recommendations  for  it,  and 
also  in  giving  them  to  the  newspapers  at  the  time  he  did,  is 
perhaps  explained  because  a  judicial  election  was  to  be  held 
in  Chicago  on  June  7,  1915,  at  which  some  of  the  electors 
might  be  influenced  for  or  against  some  of  the  candidates. 

At  the  hearings  of  the  committee  the  minutes  of  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  covering  a  period  of  several 
months  were  introduced  in  evidence  and  in  addition  to  the 
minutes  of  the  Commissioners  were  severally  interrogated  as 
to  what  occurred  at  the  meetings  of  the  Board.  The  Board  was 
composed  of  Charles  H.  Kellerman,  Chairman;  Anthony 
Czarnecki,  Secretary,  and  Howard  S.  Taylor.  The  testimony 
as  to  the  minutes  showed  they  were  at  first  kept  on  loose 
sheets  by  the  Secretary  and  not  finally  transferred  into  the 
minute  book  and  there  formally  approved  until  several 
months  after  the  meetings  had  been  held.  Notwithstanding 
this  there  was  no  question  raised  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the 
minutes.  Kellerman  and  Taylor  favored  the  contract  made 
with  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  for  1,000  voting 
machines,  and  Czarnecki  opposed  it.  The  testimony  showed 
that  Czarnecki  was  a  writer  for  one  of  the  Chicago  dailies 
during  the  time  the  contract  was  under  consideration  and 
furnished  "copy"  covering  the  different  steps  taken  during 
that  time. 

No  hint  of  any  kind  or  character  as  to  any  fraud  or  inten- 
tional wrongdoing  on  the  part  of  either  of  the  above  named 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  at  any  time,  appears  in 
evidence.  The  contract  for  the  purchase  was  let  in  the  usual 
manner  of  letting  contracts  for  the  purchase  of  supplies. 
Specifications  were  printed  and  bids  were  advertised  for  on 
those  specifications  and  copies  of  the  specifications  v/ere 
mailed  to  all  voting^machine  companies,  and  all  others  known 
to  be  interested.  Twenty-six  days  were  given  for  the  filing 
of  bids  and  this  time  was  extended  about  two  weeks  at  the 
request  of  bidders.    Further  extension  was  made  and  it  was 


50 

about  ninety  days  after  the  adoption  of  the  specifications  until 
the  contrafct  was  signed. 

As  to  the  question  of  business  judgment  in  the  purchase  of 
the  machines  we  might  doubt  whether  this  committee  or  the 
legislature  would  have  anything  to  do,  as  payment  for  the 
machines  must  be  made  by  the  City  of  Chicago  and  not  by 
the  State.  However,  the  report  prepared  by  the  attorney  for 
the  committee  deals  at  some  length  with  this  question  and 
the  objections  generally  to  the  machine,  so  we  think  it  proper 
to  mention  our  views  thereon  in  this  report.  As  bearing  upon 
these  matters  we  quote  from  the  report  of  the  special  grand 
jury  empanelled  by  the  Hon.  Henry  V.  Freeman,  November 
4,  1908,  to  investigate  misdemeanors  and  crimes  committed 
in  the  primary  election  August  8,  1908,  the  report  appearing 
in  the  typewritten  record,  pages  708  to  718,  as  follows : 

"We  find  and  so  report  that  no  confidence  can  be 
placed  in  the  reported  results  in  favor  of  or  against  any 
candidate  for  a  party  nomination  at  said  election  and 
yet  that  election  cost  the  taxpayers  of  Chicago  fully 
$75,000.00. 

Fraudulent  registration,  leading  to  fraudulent  voting; 
repeating  by  platoons  by  men  who  were  voted  first  for 
one  party  then  for  other  party  candidates  at  the  same 
precincts;  voting  names  of  absentees,  non-residents,  in- 
sane and  dead  men,  accepting  false  affidavits  on  behalf 
of  disqualified  voters,  known  to  the  judges  to  be  so; 
numerous  and  flagrant  perjuries  by  party  voters  to  en- 
able them  to  cast  illegal  votes ;  taking  votes  from  non- 
registered  voters  without  affidavits  in  support  of  such 
votes ;  fraudulent  writing  of  names  on  the  poll  books  and 
putting  ballots  in  the  boxes  to  correspond ;  keeping  upon 
the  registers  names  of  men  who  had  removed  from  the 
respective  precincts  and  voting  them;  voting  the  same 
name  more  than  once  at  the  same  precinct ;  disfranchising 
voters  by  permitting  their  names  to  be  voted  by  others ; 
marking  ballots  after  the  boxes  were  opened;  handing 
voters  ballots  already  marked  for  certain  candidates; 
marking  ballots  for  voters  against  their  wishes  and  so 
putting  ballots  into  the  ballot  box;  intimidating  voters 
and  compelling  them  to  vote  for  candidates  contrary  to 
their  wishes ;  strangers  and  police  officers  being  per- 
mitted to  handle  ballots  after  the  boxes  were  opened,  so 
as  to  permit  of  fraudulent  marking  of  ballots  were 
proven  before  us  and  are  by  no  means  all  of  the  devices 
which  we  have  reason  to  believe  were  resorted  to  in  vio- 


51 

lation  of  every  provision  of  the  election  law  intended  for 
the  security  of  the  voter,  the  sanctity  of  the  ballot  and 
the  accuracy  of  the  result  and  to  defeat  the  will  of  the 
people  as  expressed  by  the  lawful  votes,  cast  at  said 
election. 

From  the  facts  coming'  to  our  knowledge  we  express 
serious  doubt  whether  there  has  been  any  honest  general 
election  or  city  election  in  Chicago  for  years  past.   *   *   * 
Therefore,  to  reduce  the  opportunity  for  errors,  pre- 
vent frauds,  lessen  the  cost,  secure  the  prompt  announce- 
ment of  the  result  of  an  election  and  prevent  the  holding 
back  of  announcement  of  results  in  one  ward  in  order  to 
defeat  some  candidate  who  has  a  lead  in  other  wards,  we 
recommend  that  satisfactory  voting  machines  should  be 
purchased  and  installed  at  each  precinct  at  the  earliest 
practical  moment." 
The  report  of  W.  L.  Abbott,  Paul  M.  Chamberlain  and  Wil- 
liam W.  Wooley,  appointed  by  County  Judge  John  E.  Owens, 
for  the  purpose  of  reporting  on  voting  machines,  appears  at 
pages  469  to  480  of  the  typewritten  record  and  shows  that 
four  machines  were  submitted  to  them  for  inspection,  namely, 
the  Triumph,  Empire,  International  and  Winslow.     Of  the 
Empire  they  say: 

"The  machine  fulfills  the  requirements  of  the  State 
law.    *    *    *    The  Empire  is,  in  the  opinion  of  your  ex- 
perts, reasonably  well  protected  against  possibilities  of 
fraud.     *     *     *    Your  commission  believes  that  the  vot- 
ing machine  art  has  been  developed  to  a  point  where  ma- 
chines may  be  installed  in  Chicago  with  safety  and  econ- 
omy and  that  such  installation  shall  be  the  means  of 
greatly  minimizing  possibility  of  fraud  at  the  polls." 
Their  report  rates  the  machines  as  follows : 
Empire. 
Triumph. 
International. 
Winslow.  ■ 
Criticism  is  made  that  the  specifications  asked  that  blue- 
prints be  furnished  some  of  which  remained  unopened.    The 
testimony  was  that  this  item  of  the  specifications,  like  most 
of  the  others,  had  been  copied  from  the  specifications  pre- 
pared by  a  former  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  which 
were  prepared  at  a  time  when  the  machines  themselves  were 
not  in  existence  and  the  blueprints  were  needed  in  their  place. 
During  the  time  the  matter  was  under  consideration  in  1911, 
however,  all  of  the  companies  expecting  to  bid  on  the  con- 


52 

tract  had  samples  of  their  machines  submitted,  thus  making 
the  blueprints  useless. 

On  the  question  of  Empire  voting  machines  we  beg  to  quote 
from  the  report  of  Prof.  C.  E.  Depuy  to  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  under  date  of  October  12,  1908,  page  799  of 
the  typewritten  record : 

"Empire  Machine.     The  material,  workmanship  and 
general  design  are  very  satisfactory." 
Also  from  his  report  of  July  1,  1910,  page  846  of  typewrit- 
ten record : 

"Empire  Machine.  The  material,  workmanship  and 
general  design  are  of  the  same  excellent  character  as 
shown  in  the  machine  previously  exhibited;  and  I  be. 
lieve  that  this  machine  would  be  durable  and  reliable  in 
action.     *     *     * 

The  device  for  controlling  the  number  of  bars  by  each 
party  in  a  primary  election  is  very  simple  and  effective. 
It  accomplishes  the  end  desired  without  in  any  way  in- 
terfering with  the  accuracy  or  ease  of  manipulation  of 
the  machine  for  other  purposes.     *     *     * 

The  machine  presented  I  believe  will  receive  and  re- 
cord votes  in  an  election  accurately  and  quickly,  after 
the  machine  is  adjusted  and  the  voters  have  received  the 
proper  instruction,  and  this  will  simplify  the  work  of 
judges  and  clerks  in  securing  correct  returns." 
We  quote  from  the  report  of  Prof.  George  0.  Olson  to  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  under  date  of  March  10, 
1908,  page  795  of  typewritten  record : 

"In  answering  question  18,  'From  your  examination 
and  study  of  the  several  voting  machines,  are  they,  in 
your  opinion,  sufficiently  perfected  so  that  you  would  ad- 
vise the  Board  to  purchase  any  one  of  them  at  this  time,' 
my  answer  is  'Yes;  from  a  mechanical  standpoint  only.'  " 
Also  from  his  report  appearing  at  page  797  of  the  t}rpe- 
written  record: 

"U.   S.   Standard  Voting  Machine"    (predecessor   of 

Empire) :    "This  machine  is  a  very  practical  machine  in 

every  way  and  certain  conditions  which  I  criticised  in 

my  last  report  have  been  successfully  overcome." 

Also  from  his  report  dated  October  11,  1909,  page  816  of 

typewritten  record: 

"Empire  Voting  Machine:  The  material  used  in  the 
construction  of  this  machine  could  not,  in  my  opinion,  be 
improved  on,  and  the  outside  finish  is  fine.  The  work- 
manship is  first  class.    I  wish  to  call  special  attention  to 


53 

the  high  grade  of  work  on  the  counters  and  counter  hold- 
ers.   It  is  in  my  opinion  very  high-grade  work." 
He  uses  practically  the  same  language  in  his  report  of  July 
14,  1910,  but  states  in  that  report  that  the  machine  is  too 
heavy  and  for  that  reason  advises  against  buying  the  ma- 
chine. 

We  quote  from  the  report  of  Prof.  O.  A.  Leutwiler  to  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  under  date  of  October  15, 
1909,  on  the  Empire,  Triumph,  Willet  and  Winslow  machines, 
the  report  beginning  on  page  822  of  the  typewritten  record: 
"Empire  Voting  Machine:    The  general  design  of  this 
machine  is  probably  the  best  of  any  machine  the  writer 
examined.     *     *     *     q^i^Q  machine  is  amply  protected 
against  fraudulent  manipulation  by  the  judges  in  that 
it  is  locked  by  several  separate  locks  and  keys,  thus  per- 
mitting the  keys  to  be  divided  between  the  judges.    This 
means  that  at  least  two  parties  are  represented  when 
the  machine  is  being  prepared  for  voting.     The  same 
.remarks  apply  when  the  polls  are  closed  and  the  count 
is  being  taken  off." 
Prof.  Depuy,  Olson  and  Leutwiler  were  the  expert  wit- 
nesses employed  by  the  committee  to  show  that  the  Empire 
was  not  a  practical  machine  and  because  of  this  we  wish  to 
quote  very  briefly  from  their  testimony: 

C.  E.  Depuy,  page  1435  typewritten  record:  "Never  saw 
better  machine  than  Empire."  Page  1513  typewritten  rec- 
ord: "Use  of  angle  iron  would  naturally  occasion  complaint 
from  voter." 

On  pages  1528,  1529  and  1530  of  typewritten  record  to  spe- 
cific questions  covering  every  requirement  of  the  Illinois  vot- 
ing machine  law  as  to  whether  the  Empire  complied  with  them 
he  answered  in  the  affirmative  as  to  all  except  the  one  in  re- 
gard to  voting  within  one  minute  and  as  to  that  his  reply  was : 
"That  I  have  a  question  about." 
Page  1541  typewritten  record: 

"Q.     Whenever  machine  is  properly  adjusted  it  can- 
not be  beaten! 

A.     I  have  never  found  a  way  of  doing  it." 
Page  1542  typewritten  record: 

"Q.     Can  you  make  that  machine  vote  for  more  men 
than  it  is  adjusted  for? 
A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     Can  you  go  to  that  machine  now  and  make  it  vote 
for  more  men  than  it  is  adjusted  for! 
A.     No,  sir,  it  will  work  as  it  is  adjusted. 


54 

Q.  Then  taking  into  consideration  the  fact  of  the  hu- 
man element,  the  machine  is  infallible  as  it  stands,  is  it 
not? 

A.  The  mechanism  is  very  satisfactory  and  I  have 
never  found  it  to  work  wrong. 

Q.     Nor  to  be  capable  of  being  worked  wrong? 
A.     Unless  it  is  set  wrong." 
Page  1590  typewritten  record: 

''Q.     Now  on  the  subject  of  this  being  the  best  ma- 
chine of  the  type,  or  of  any  type,  do  you  say  you  have 
seen  a  better  machine  than  this? 
A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     Have  you  ever  seen  one  that  is  as  good? 
A.     No,  I  think  not." 
George  0.  Olson,  page  1665  of  typewritten  record: 
' '  Q.     Will  the  machine  do  what  it  is  set  to  do  ? 
A.     Yes,  sir." 
Page  1667: 

"Q.  You  think  that  because  of  the  necessity  of  the 
custodian  adjusting  and  setting  this  machine  and  because 
he  may  do  it  falsely  and  wrongfully  that  the  machine 
ought  to  be  rejected? 

A.     No,  I  don't  think  the  machine  ought  to  be  rejected 
for  that  particular  reason." 
C.  A.  Leutwiler,  page  1767  of  typewritten  record : 

"Q.     But  if  it  is  set  properly  the  machine  will  do  what 
it  ought  to  do? 
A.    Yes." 
Page  1772: 

"Q.     Did  you  ever  examine  a  better  machine  than  this 
Empire  machine  exhibited  this  year? 
A.     No,  I  don't  think  I  have. 
Q.     Did  you  ever  examine  one  that  was  as  good? 
A.     No,  I  don 't  think  I  have. ' ' 
The  above  seems  to  show  conclusively  that  not  only  was 
the  Empire  the  best  voting  machine  to  be  had  at  the  time  the 
contract  for  the  purchase  of  the  machine  was  entered  into, 
but  that  it  was  a  practical  and  efficient  machine.     That  this 
is  the  case  is  further  shown  by  the  fact  as  testified  to  by 
Anthony  Czarnecki,  page  2558  of  typewritten  record,  that  in 
the  spring  of  1913  about  130  of  the  machines  were  used  in 
precincts  in  Chicago  where  no  paper  ballots  were  provided, 
and  that  there  was  no  complaint  from  the  voters  either  that 
they  were  not  able  to  vote  within  one  minute,  or  otherwise. 
On  page  2559  he  testified  that  no  complaints  came  to  the 


55 

Board  of  Election  Commissioners  about  difficulty  in  deliver- 
ing the  machines  to  the  precincts,  and  that  there  was  no  con- 
test in  that  election  involving  any  of  the  precincts  where  the 
machines  were  used.  The  use  of  these  machines  without  com- 
plaint in  this  election  seems  to  answer  fully  the  objections  of 
Profs.  Depuy,  Olson  and  Leutwiler  that  the  machine  was  too 
heavy  to  be  practicable.  On  this  question  the  testimony  shows 
the  machines  weigh  about  one  thousand  pounds  and  are  so 
arranged  that  three  men  handle  them  with  expediency,  they 
being  conveyed  from  the  storage  room  to  the  precincts  and 
back  in  loads  of  from  three  to  five  each.  That  Anthony  Czar- 
necki  had  no  doubt  of  the  practicability  of  the  machine,  and 
that  he  opposed  the  letting  of  the  contract  either  for  news- 
paper purposes  or  because  he  thought  it  inadvisable  to  pur- 
chase so  many  machines  at  one  time,  is  indicated  by  his  mo- 
tion appearing  on  page  2534,  typewritten  record,  from  min- 
utes of  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  June  30,  1911, 
page  136: 

"I  hereby  renew  my  motion  upon  which  no  action  has 
been  taken  up  to  date,  and  now  move  to  limit  the  first 
purchase  of  voting  machines  to  120." 

That  the  people  of  Chicago  favored  the  installation  of  vot- 
ing machines  was  evidenced  by  the  referendum  election  on 
that  question,  the  vote  being,  yeas  229,577,  and  the  nays 
27,081,  as  show^n  on  page  2872  of  the  typewritten  record. 

Considerable  time  of  the  committee  was  taken  up  in  show- 
ing that  many  of  the  machines  used  in  the  1912  election  either 
had  no  seals  or  that  the  seals  were  broken  or  loose,  or  that 
the  records  of  the  seals  did  not  correspond.  The  seals  re- 
ferred to  were  frail,  self-locking,  thin  metal  seals,  comparing 
with  those  used  to  seal  doors  of  box  cars.  They  were  num- 
bered, the  numbers  having  been  stamped  in  them  and  they 
were  used  over  the  curtain  lever  of  the  voting  machine.  The 
curtain  lever  is  a  lever  attached  to  the  voting  lever  of  the 
machine,  and  it  automatically  closes  the  curtains  behind  the 
voter  when  the  voting  lever  is  thrown  by  him  to  release  the 
voting  keys,  thus  making  the  casting  of  his  ballot  secret ;  and 
when  the  voting  lever  is  thrown  back  by  the  voter  to  register 
Ms  vote  the  curtain  lever  automatically  throws  back  the  cur- 
tains permitting  the  voter  to  retire  from  the  machine.  This 
curtain  lever  is  folded  back  against  the  machine  proper  when 
the  machine  is  boxed  for  shipment  to  or  from  the  warehouses, 
and  it  was  to  hold  the  curtain  lever  in  place  while  the  ma- 
chine was  boxed  that  the  seals  referred  to  were  used.  They 
had  no  part  whatever  in  protecting  the  integrity  of  the  ma- 


56 

chine  notwithstanding  the  attempt  of  the  attorney  for  the 
committee  to  make  it  appear  so  in  the  report  he  drafted  and 
in  conclusion  two  thereof.  The  seals  were  not  required  to  be 
used  in  the  voting  machine  law.  Because  of  their  frailty 
many  of  them  were  unintentionally  locked  or  otherwise  de- 
stroyed by  the  election  officials  during  the  conduct  of  the 
election  before  the  close  of  the  polls,  or  they  were  destroyed 
in  removing  the  machine  at  the  close  of  election.  They  were 
too  easily  destroyed  to  be  practical  and  were  not  used  in  the 
later  election  in  which  machines  were  used.  An  ordinary 
twine  cord  would  have  answered  the  purpose  of  the  seal  and 
in  many  instances  where  the  seals  had  been  destroyed  cords 
were  used. 

The  voting  lever,  to  which  the  curtain  lever  is  attached  and 
over  which  the  seals  were  placed  in  the  1912  election,  is  pro- 
tected by  a  lock,  locked  with  a  key,  and  the  lever  could  not 
have  been  moved  without  unlocking  that  lock.  There  is  a 
further  and  complete  check  and  protection  against  voting 
after  the  returns  have  been  taken  from  the  machine  by  the 
election  officials  at  the  close  of  the  election.  This  check  is 
the  protective  counter.  This  protective  counter  is  incased 
in  the  machine  and  no  one  can  obtain  access  to  it.  It  runs 
from  zero  to  one  million  and  then  automatically  sets  itself 
at  zero  again.  The  number  it  shows  is  taken  by  the  election 
officials  at  the  opening  of  the  polls  and  again  at  closing,  thus 
showing  the  number  of  votes  cast.  This  protective  counter 
would  show  without  fail  if  the  voting  lever  of  the  machine 
were  thrown  by  any  one  after  the  polls  had  closed  and  its 
record  taken  by  the  election  officials,  and  it  is  not  possible  to 
record  a  vote  on  the  machine  wdthout  doing  so  by  the  use  of 
the  voting  lever. 

As  stated,  the  fact  that  many  of  the  frail  seals  over  the 
curtain  levers  of  machines  were  not  intact  when  the  machines 
were  opened  later  at  the  warehouse,  did  not  indicate  that  the 
machines  had  been  tampered  with.  They  could  not  have  been 
tampered  with  by  the  use  of  the  curtain  or  voting  lever  with- 
out the  protective  counter  showing  it.  This  was  well  known 
to  the  attorney  for  the  committee,  and  notwithstanding  this 
he  devoted  all  of  conclusion  2,  and  pages  77  to  80  of  the  type- 
written report  he  prepared  for  the  committee,  to  this  matter. 
We  quote  from  his  report  as  follows : 

"Further  evidence  of  defective  or  fraudulent  use  of 
the  machine,  of  a  wholesale  character  was  supplied  by 
the  testimony  of  Mr.  Lawrence  F.  King,  special  custodian 
appointed  by  the  court  to  have  official  charge  and  cus- 


57 

tody  of  the  returns  of  the  general  election  of  1912,  and 
of  the  recount  of  those  returns  in  the  Hoyne-Rinaker- 
Cunnea  contest  over  the  office  of  State's  Attorney  of 
Cook  County,  and  by  that  of  other  witnesses  who  testi- 
fied in  regard  to  changes  of  voting  machine  seals  be- 
tween the  close  of  election  and  the  opening  of  the  voting 
machines  for  recount.     *     *     * 

When  they  were  thus  opened  it  was  found  that  no  less 
than  107  of  the  seals  placed  upon  the  voting  machines  by 
the  election  judges  at  the  close  of  election  were  no  longer 
on  the  machines  and  that  other  seals  had  been  substituted 
for  them.     «     *     « 

No  explanation  of  this  state  of  affairs  was  asked  for  by 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners.  The  following  is 
quoted  from  the  same  page  of  the  printed  abstract: 

'Mr.  McEwen  (to  Mr.  Czarnecki) :  Did  you  ask  any  of 
the  judges  or  clerks  to  explain  the  discrepancy. 
Mr.  Czarnecki:  No,  sir,  we  did  not.'  " 
Now  it  seems  to  us  that  this  question  and  answer  does  fur- 
nish an  explanation  in  that  even  Mr.  Czarnecki,  who  as  one 
of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  was  directly  inter- 
ested in  the  matter,  thought  so  little  of  the  fact  that  the  seal 
numbers  did  not  correspond  he  never  even  made  a  single  in- 
quiry in  regard  to  it.  The  probabilities  are  that  in  most  of 
the  cases  where  the  record  of  the  seal  numbers  did  not  cor- 
respond, the  judges  of  election  did  not  correctly  read  the  seal 
numbers,  the  numbers  as  above  stated,  being  stamped  in  the 
seals.  However  the  difference  may  have  occurred,  there  is 
not  a  single  word  of  testimony  in  the  entire  record  in  this 
case  that  a  single  one  of  the  107  machines  where  the  seal 
numbers  did  not  correspond  had  been  opened  after  being 
closed  by  the  election  officials,  and  not  a  single  word  of  testi- 
mony in  the  record  that  a  single  vote  had  been  changed  on  a 
single  one  of  the  machines,  and  not  a  single  word  of  testi- 
mony that  notwithstanding  the  seal  numbers  did  not  cor- 
respond, the  judge  who  tried  the  Hoyne-Rinaker-Cunnea  con- 
test did  not  count  the  votes  from  those  machines  in  that  con- 
test. 

Because  of  these  matters  it  seems  to  us  that  the  attorney 
for  the  committee  is  deliberately  trying  to  mislead  those  who 
may  read  the  report  he  prepared  when  he  states  that  "fur- 
ther evidence  of  defective  or  fraudulent  use  of  the  machine, 
of  a  wholesale  character  was  supplied  by  Lawrence  P.  King," 
etc. 
About  one-half  of  the  report  prepared  by  the  attorney  for 


5» 

the  committee  related  to  the  objections  made  to  the  contract 
made  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  with  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company,  including  those  of  Mr.  Czar- 
necki,  the  minority  member  of  the  Board,  and  the  protests 
filed  by  other  voting  machine  companies,  and  the  other  one- 
half  to  what  is  known  as  the  Duke  statement  and  the  con- 
troversies arising  over  it.  We  have  already  shown  that  in 
our  opinion  no  proof  of  any  fraud  or  intentional  wrong- 
doing of  any  kind  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
appears  in  the  record.  The  so-called  Duke  statement  is  iden- 
tified and  fathered  as  follows:  Thomas  A.  Boyer,  a  citizen 
of  Illinois,  visited  his  father  at  Washington,  Iowa,  a  point 
about  30  miles  from  Ottumwa,  on  May  30,  1913.  While  there 
Boyer  and  Duke  were  introduced,  supposedly  in  a  casual 
meeting.  Duke  stated  to  Boyer  that  he  represented  three 
men  who  had  a  contested  claim  in  the  sum  of  $1,500  against 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  which  he  could  not  col- 
lect, but  which  he  might  collect  if  he  could  get  some  pub- 
licity for  the  claim.  It  later  transpired  that  settlement  of 
the  claim  had  been  made  by  way  of  compromise  by  entering 
into  a  written  contract  for  the  payment  of  one  thousand  dol- 
lars on  certain  contingencies,  the  contract  having  been  en- 
tered into  on  May  24,  1913,  a  few  days  prior  to  the  time  of 
the  Boyer-Duke  introduction.  The  Duke  statement  was  sup- 
posed to  have  been  written  by  Duke  and  delivered  to  Boyer 
and  purported  to  quote  the  three  men  interested  in  the  claim 
against  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company.  The  statement 
was  not  signed  by  any  one;  it  did  not  contain  the  name  of 
Duke ;  it  did  not  contain  the  name  of  either  of  the  parties  it 
purported  to  quote;  its  nearest  identification  appears  in  the 
opening  sentence  of  the  statement  which  is :  "  We  have  lived 
in  Ottumwa  for  thirty-five  years,  fifty  years  and  fifty-five 
years  respectively." 

Surely  this  is  not  sufficient  to  fix  responsibility  for  the  con- 
tents of  the  statement  on  any  one  at  all.  It  could  be  nothing 
but  hearsay  several  times  removed.  The  committee  very 
properly  refused  to  consider  the  statement.  The  rulings 
thereon,  however,  announced  by  the  Chairman  were  to  the 
effect  the  statement  might  be  admitted  later,  and  as  the  state- 
ment reflected  on  a  certain  citizen  of  Chicago,  an  affidavit  was 
made  by  one  Edward  E.  Marriott  quoting  the  three  Iowa  par- 
ties as  denying  the  matter  contained  in  the  Duke  statement, 
the  affidavit  also  reflecting  on  certain  citizens,  particularly 
one,  of  Chicago.  The  Marriott  affidavit  was  submitted  to  the 
committee  to  be  held  with  the  so-called  Duke  statement  and 


59 

to  be  considered  if  a  later  ruling  of  the  Committee  should 
admit  that  statement.  When  the  contents  of  the  affidavit  be- 
came known  the  attorney  for  the  Chicago  citizen  therein  par- 
ticularly named,  appeared  before  the  committee  and  asked 
that  both  the  Duke  statement  and  the  Marriott  affidavit  be 
admitted  in  the  record.  The  attorney  representing  the  citi- 
zen reflected  on  in  the  Duke  statement  also  requested  the  com- 
mittee to  admit  both  papers  in  the  record.  There  was  not  a 
quorum  of  the  committee  in  attendance  at  the  meeting  when 
the  requests  were  made  for  the  admission  of  both  papers  and 
a  majority  of  those  present  decided,  in  view  of  the  request  of 
the  attorneys  representing  the  two  citizens  reflected  on,  to 
admit  both  the  Duke  statement  and  the  Marriott  affidavit  in 
the  record.  Neither  of  these  papers  had  any  bearing  in  any 
way  on  any  matter  properly  before  the  committee,  and  neither 
should  have  been  admitted  in  the  record  or  considered  by  the 
committee  as  there  was  not  a  word  of  evidence  in  the  record 
in  any  way  connecting  either  of  the  parties  against  whom  re- 
flections were  cast  with  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 
who  made  the  contract  for  the  voting  machines,  or  any  mem- 
ber thereof.  Notwithstanding  this  there  was  much  time  of 
the  committee  taken  up  by  the  attorneys  arguing  the  matter 
and  all  of  the  typewritten  report  prepared  by  the  attorney 
for  the  committee  from  page  49  to  71  is  devoted  to  the  Mar- 
riott affidavit  and  Duke  statement,  and  the  controversies  aris- 
ing over  them..  From  this  it  would  seem  that  the  attorney 
for  the  committee  thinks  that  the  reflections  cast  in  those  pa- 
pers should  receive  the  widest  publicity  possible,  even  though 
as  stated,  neither  of  them  should  have  been  admitted  in  the 
record  or  given  consideration  by  the  committee. 

Eeference  is  made  in  the  report  prepared  by  the  attorney 
for  the  committee  to  seventeen  witnesses  called  before  the 
committee  from  the  20th  precinct  of  the  First  ward,  it  being 
sought  to  prove  by  them  by  their  oral  testimony  that  the  ma- 
chine must  not  have  correctly  recorded  their  votes.  These 
witnesses  were  all  or  practically  all  of  a  low  order  of  men- 
tality and  in  view  of  that  fact  and  their  demeanor  while  tes- 
tifying no  serious  consideration  could  be  given  their  testi- 
mony as  against  the  undisputed  evidence  of  the  experts  em- 
ployed by  the  committee  that  they  had  never  seen  the  mech- 
anism of  the  machine  fail  of  proper  action. 

The  statement  from  conclusion  one:  "That  the  experi- 
ments showing  possible  manipulation  by  the  voters  this  com- 
mittee does  not  consider  so  serious  a  source  of  practical  fraud 
in  elections  conducted  with  voting  machines  as  those  pos- 


60 

sible  by  the  judges  of  election  and  by  the  custodian  of  voting 
machines  especially  the  latter ' ' ;  indicates  that  the  voter,  even 
in  the  opinion  of  the  attorney  for  the  committee,  has  but  little 
or  no  opportunity  to  practice  fraud  on  the  machine.  For  the 
election  officials  to  do  so  would  necessitate  collusion  among 
all  of  them  and  the  watchers  and  others  present  at  the  polling 
place  as  well.  The  machine  is  provided  with  five  locks,  only 
three  of  which  are  in  the  control  of  the  election  officials.  The 
other  two  give  access  to  that  part  of  the  machine  where  the 
machine  is  so  set  or  arranged  for  each  separate  election  as 
to  permit  of  voting  only  for  the  candidates  in  that  election, 
all  other  voting  keys  on  the  machine  being  locked.  The  two 
keys  giving  access  to  this  portion  of  the  machine  are  known 
as  the  custodian's  keys  and  kept  by  him.  They  are  not  sent 
out  with  the  machine  so  the  judges  of  election  never  have  ac- 
cess to  that  portion  of  the  machine  and  cannot  set  or  arrange 
the  machine  for  fraudulent  voting.  Every  fraud  the  election 
officials  can  commit  on  the  machine  they  can  more  readily 
commit  on  the  paper  ballot  during  the  progress  of  the  elec- 
tion, and  in  addition  thereto  they  have  the  opportunities  for 
fraud  with  the  paper  ballots  during  the  counting  of  the  bal- 
lots which  is  absolutely  foreclosed  to  them  by  the  machine. 

■  This  leaves  the  possibilities  of  fraud  being  committed  on 
the  machine  to  the  custodian.  While  we  think  the  possibili- 
ties of  fraud  by  the  custodian  were  safeguarded  against  by  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in  the  elections  where  the 
machines  were  used,  and  while  there  was  not  a  single  word  of 
evidence  anywhere  in  the  record  that  any  machine  used  in 
any  election  had  been  wrongfully  or  fraudulently  set  by  the 
custodian,  still  we  think  to  allay  the  suspicion  that  might  arise 
in  the  minds  of  the  citizens,  and  to  prevent  the  possibility  of 
a  corrupt  custodian  from  fraudulently  setting  the  machines 
we  suggest  that  provision  be  made  by  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  for  representatives  of  the  different  political 
parties  to  be  present  while  the  machines  are  being  prepared 
for  the  election,  and  the  keys  to  that  part  of  the  machine  then 
be  returned  to  the  Election  Commissioner's  office  to  be  held 
by  them  during  the  election  and  for  not  less  than  ten  days 
thereafter.  This  would  allay  any  suspicion  the  voter  might 
have  as  to  the  setting  of  the  machine. 

Conclusion  two  relates  to  "seals"  to  which  we  have  above 
referred,  and  conclusions  tliree  and  four  seek  by  inference  to 
place  the  shortcomings  of  election  officials  on  the  machine. 
We  deny  that  the  machine  should  be  charged  with  such  short- 
comings. 

Conclusion  five  relates  to  the  machine  with  reference  to 


61 

primary  elections.  The  machine  purchased  contains  630  vot- 
ing keys  and  will  take  care  of  primary  elections  where  there 
are  fewer  than  630  candidates  but  will  not  take  care  of  pri- 
maries where  there  are  more  than  that  number  of  candidates. 

Conclusion  six  relates  to  the  provision  of  the  law  requiring 
the  machine  to  be  so  constructed  as  to  permit  the  voter  to 
cast  his  vote  in  one  minute.  With  reference  to  this  matter 
we  wish  to  say  that  in  our  opinion  in  a  general  election  having 
as  many  candidates  as  the  election  in  the  fall  of  1912,  the 
ordinary  voter  would  likely  not  be  able  to  vote  a  split  ticket 
within  one  minute  and  therefore  recommend  to  the  legislature 
that  the  voting  machine  law  be  amended  in  this  regard  as 
provided  in  House  Bill  No.  981,  introduced  by  Representative 
Ferdinand  A.  Garesche  on  June  3,  1915. 

Conclusion  7  seeks  to  say  that  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners in  making  the  contract  to  purchase  the  machines 
did  not  give  due  consideration  to  reports  of  previous  investi- 
gations of  voting  machines.  This  charge,  we  think,  is  not 
borne  out  by  the  proof  in  the  record.  In  all  previous  admin- 
istrations after  the  adoption  of  the  Voting  Machine  law  there 
was  an  insistent  and  persistent  demand  on  the  part  of  the 
people  and  especially  of  the  daily  newspapers  that  voting 
machines  be  installed  in  Chicago  and  that  action  to  that  end 
be  taken  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  Every  objection  to 
the  Empire  machine  pointed  out  by  those  who  examined  it 
for  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in  1910,  except  the 
one  of  weight,  which  objection  experience  has  shown  is  not  a 
serious  one,  had  been  overcome  in  the  Empire  submitted  in 
1911. 

What  reason  caused  the  great  change  of  sentiment  in  re- 
gard to  voting  machines  among  the  Chicago  newspapers  fol- 
lowing the  year  1910  does  not  definitely  appear  in  the  record 
but  the  answer  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  a  change  of  ad^ 
ministration  occurred. 

Conclusion  8  charges  the  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers with:  official  carelessness  justly  deserving  criticism  if 
not  condemnation ;  because  of  the  method  of  financing  the  pur- 
chase of  the  machines.  The  Board  is  charged  by  law  with  the 
purchase  of  election  supplies  and  the  voting  machine  law  au- 
thorizes the  method  of  financing  pursued.  We  again  repeat 
that  there  is  not  one  word  of  evidence  in  the  record  showing 
any  fraudulent  or  intentional  wrong-doing  on  the  part  of  the 
Board  or  any  member  thereof  in  the  purchase  of  the  machines 
and  we  prefer  neither  to  condemn  nor  commend  their  action  in 
making  the  purchase,  preferring  at  this  time  to  let  the  experi- 
ence of  succeeding  years  prove  whether  their  action  showed 
bad  business  judgment  or  good  business  judgment. 


62 


Observations. 

The  change  from  the  paper  ballot  to  the  machine  is  a  great 
one,  and  one  for  which  the  people  must  be  educated.  The 
change  is,  we  think,  greater  than  was  the  change  from  the  old 
system  of  voting  to  that  of  voting  under  the  Australian  bal- 
lot law  and  it  will  be  recalled  that  that  change  brought  mis- 
givings to  many  of  the  voters  as  to  the  advisability  of  the 
change.  Because  of  the  necessity  of  educating  the  voters  to 
the  use  of  the  machine,  machines  should  be  loaned  to  and 
their  use  encouraged  by  clubs,  lodges  and  other  organiza- 
tions in  the  election  of  their  officers  and  such  other  elections 
for  which  the  machines  may  be  used.  We  think  that  when 
educated  to  the  use  of  the  machine,  it  will  be  preferred  by 
the  voter  to  the  Australian  ballot,  just  as  the  latter  is  now 
preferred  to  the  former  system  of  voting. 

The  experience  in  the  spring  election  of  1913  where  130 
machines  were  used  in  precincts  where  no  paper  ballots  were 
used,  and  where  no  contest  resulted,  and  where  no  question 
of  the  accuracy  and  integrity  of  the  machines  arose,  we  think, 
suggests  the  proper  method  of  educating  the  people  to  the 
practical  use  of  the  machine.  That  in  such  elections  as  do  not 
have  an  extremely  large  number  of  candidates  the  machines 
should  be  used  without  the  use  of  paper  ballots,  and  in  the 
elections  where  there  are  an  extremely  large  number  of  can- 
didates, paper  ballots  should  be  provided,  as  well  as  ma- 
chines, as  was  done  in  the  1912  election.  Experience,  we 
think,  will  demonstrate  that  the  machine  will  permit  of  vot- 
ing at  the  rate  of  one  or  more  per  minute  and  thus  eventually 
permit  a  discontinuance  of  the  use  of  paper  ballots  in  pre- 
cincts where  machines  are  used  even  in  elections  having  an 
extremely  large  number  of  candidates  and  also  permit  a  re- 
duction in  the  number  of  precincts  where  they  are  used. 

Because  of  the  ease,  rapidity  and  accuracy  of  taking  from 
the  machines  the  result  of  the  election  at  the  close  of  the 
polls,  in  contrast  with  the  long  and  tedious  method  of  count- 
ing the  paper  ballots,  and  the  opportunities  for  fraud  during 
the  same,  the  use  of  the  machines  should  be  encouraged  as 
rapidly  as  the  education  of  the  people  in  their  use  will  permit. 
Eespectfuly  submitted, 

S.  D.  Canaday, 
F.  C.  Campbell, 
W.  R.  Shaw, 
John  Kassekman, 
F.  A.  Gaeesche. 


ABSTRACT  of  PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 


LEGISLATIVE  VOTING  MACHINE 
INVESTIGATION  COMMITTEE 


VOLUME  L 

Page  of  

Record. 

Amos  Miller: 

2-3  Besides  at  Hillsboro,  Illinois;  Democratic  member  and 
secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commis- 
sioners appointed  in  1903    by    Governor   Yates;    served 

5  since  appointment  to  date.  Produces  copy  of  minutes  of 
Board  which  is  admitted  subject  to  verification.  Witness 
thinks  he  has  examined  thirteen   or   fourteen   machines. 

6  Board  a/pproved  every  machine  examined  by  it  except  one 

7  incomplete  machine  of  which  witness  does  not  recall  the 
name. 

8-9  Witness  gives  list  of  voting  machines  examined  by  Com- 
mission of  which  he  was  a  member,  including : 

Winslow  Voting  Machine,  examined  February  13,  1904. 

National  Voting  Machine,  no  date. 

Universal  Voting  Machine,  examined  March  10,  1904. 


\ 


2  Testimony  of  Amos  Miller. 

United  States  Standard  Voting  Macliine,  examined 
June  7,  1904. 

National  Voting  Machine,  examined  September  28, 
1905. 

Dean  Ballot  Machine,  examined  October  10,  1905. 

Triumph  Voting  Machine,  examined  same  date. 

Columbia  Voting  Machine,  examined  same  date. 

Wilcox  Voting  Machine,  examined  October  21,  1907. 

American  Vote  Eegister,  examined  January  25,  1908. 

10  Empire  Voting  Machine,  examined  March  20,  1911. 

A  number  of  Empire  Voting  Machines  "I  think  twen- 
ty," "of  the  same  make  as  the  one  examined  March  28th, 
1911,  examined  March  20th." 

Q.  Were  those  twenty  machines  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chines, or  United  States  Standard  Machines  submitted 
by  the  Empire  Company?  A.  '  I  understood  they  were 
Empire  Voting  Machines. 

11  Witness  understands  the  twenty  machines  were  ma- 
chines to  be  put  on  exhibition  or  test  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago at  the  following  election.  The  machines  were  ex- 
amined in  the  City  of  Chicago  at  the  barn  of  the  American 
Express  Company,  538  Seber  street.  The  twenty  machines 
were  examined  for  one  fee,  in  addition  to  the  fee  for  ex- 
amination of  the  Empire  Machine  on  March  20th. 

Three  machines  of  the  twenty  were  rolled  out  of  the 
box.  "We  looked  them  over,  not  particularly,  but  cas- 
ually, to  see  that  they  were  of  the  same  type  as  the  one 

12  that  we  examined  on  the  20th.  They  were  very  heavy. 
We  noticed  the  box  was  stamped  'Empire  Voting  Machine 
Number  so-and-so';  and  what  we  were  doing  then  was 
merely  perfunctory  as  I  understood  it,  and  really  unnec- 
essary, but  that  is  not  for  me  to  decide  that  it  was  not. 
So  we  counted  the  number  of  boxes  that  were  endorsed, 
took  hold  of  them  and  tried  to  roll  them  around  and  found 
they  were  as  heavy  as  the  others.  They  had  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  name  on  them,  and  the  number  on  the 
box." 

From  the  examination  made  the  w-itness  cannot  state 
positively  that  they  were  Empire  and  not  United  States 
Voting  Machines  that  were  then  examined.  The  three  ex- 
amined were  evidently  the  same  as  the  one  examined  on 
March  20th.    We  issued  a  certificate  as  to  the  twenty. 

13  December  18,  1911,  examined  a  voting  machine  of  the 


Examination  of  Empire  Voting  Machines.  3 

Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  of  Jamestown,  New 
York,  No.  4362.  Witness  thinks  that  some  of  the  Chicago 
Election  Commissioners  Avere  present  at  the  examination. 
Remembers  Mr.  Judge ;  does  not  remember  the  names  of 
the  other  two.    Witness  thinks  the  attorney  for  the  Elec- 

14  tion  Commissioners,  thinks  Wheelock  is  the  name,  was 

15  also  present.  Did  not  liave  any  mechanical  expert  assist 
in  the  examination.  His  best  recollection  is  that  the  State 
Board  spent  three  hours  examining  the  Empire  Voting 

16  Machine.    That  was  the  first  time  an  Empire  machine  was 

17  examined,  which  it  seems  was  on  March  20th,  1911. 

18  Witness  does  not  recall  that  an  Empire  Voting  Machine 
had  been  examined    in    1909.      "I   find   this    minute    on 

.•  the  night  of  June  28th,  1911.  'Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company  of  Jamestown,  New  York,  request  the  Board  to 
examine  twenty  machines,  the  same  known  as  the  United 
States  Voting  Machine,  a  type  of  which  machine  was  ex- 
amined by  the  Board  June  7,  1904,  being  No.  1828.'  " 

20  Empire  Voting  Machine  (No.  4071)  examined  March 
20th,  1911,  was  a  nine-party,  70-key  machine,  according 
to  witness'  best  recollection.  Examination  was  not  at- 
tended by  any  other  officials  than  Election  Commission- 

21  ers,  nor  by  representatives  of  any  civic  bodies.  Demon- 
strators of  the  machines  examined  were  present.  Board 
examined  restricting  devices,  restricting  number  of  can- 
didates voter  could  vote,  for  grouping  candidates,  such 
as  Legislative,  Sanitary  District,  County  Commissioners 
and  Judges.  Did  not  examine  machine  with  reference  to 
Primary  Law  devices. 

22  Tested  machines  by  voting  upon  it  and  looked  through 
back  part  and  front  part  of  machines.  Examined  ma- 
chine as  to  possibilities  of  manipulation    and    concluded 

23  that,  "It  was  safe  in  the  hands  of  honest  people."  "But 
does  not  believe  you  could  hardly  keep  them  from  man- 
ipulating any  machine,  or  collusion — where  there  was  col- 
lusion a  custodian,  if  dishonest,  could  manipulate  it." 

Judges  could  manipulate  machine  if  dishonest.    Witness 
does  not  think  voter  would  have  time  to  manipulate  it 

24  Did  not  make  any  inquiry  into  how  custodian  or  judges, 
or  voters  could  manipulate  machine. 


4  Witness'  Views  of  Empire  Voting  Machine. 

Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  Mitchell. 

25  Witness  concluded  that  Empire  Machine  fulfilled  re- 
quirements of  Illinois  Voting  Machine  Law,  and  he  be- 
lieved his  associates  on  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Ma- 
chine Examiners  signed  a  statement  to  that  effect. 

26  Machine  could  be  manipulated  by  dishonest  judges, 
clerks,  and  voters ;  so  could  the  Australian  Ballot  System. 

28  Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  reports  made  by  witness  and  Mr.  Emerson  were 
filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State.  In  making  examina- 
tion of  machines  had  in  view  whether  they  complied  with 
the  requirements  of  statute.    Witness  was  not  influenced 

30  by  Election  Commissioners  in  making  reports ;  it  -was  his 
own  independent  judgment. 

31-2-3  Witness  identifies  as  documents  concerning  which  he 
testifies  two  certificates  of  State  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners for  Empire  Voting  Machines,  4071,  exatained 
March  20th,  1911,  and  4362,  examined  December  18,  1911. 

33  Witness  does  not  recall  that  Voting  Machine  Commis- 
sioners made  examination  in  reference  to  primary  elec- 
tions, but  after  reading  certificate  stating  that  the  In- 
spector of  Elections  may  so  set  the  machine  that  the  voter 
can  vote  only  for  the  candidates  of  the  party  with  -which 
he  has  declared  aifiliation,  says  they  must  have  made  ex- 
amination of  the  machine  in  reference  to  primary  elec- 
tions. 

Documents  identified  as  Owens'  Exhibits  1  and  2  of 
this  date,  and  at  the  request  of  the  Chairman  marked, 

34  "0.1,  and  0.2,  7-22-1913." 

Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

34  State  Board  examined  voting  machine  especially  with 
reference  to  one  minute  voting  requirement  and  witness 
understood  the  provision  of  the  statute  for  precincts  of 
600  voters.  Witness  said  and  says  the  average  voter 
could  read  the  questions  and  vote  a  straight  or  split  ticket 
in  one  minute.    Does  not  recall  examining  machine  in  ref- 

35  erence  to  primaries.  Witness  presumes  that  custodian 
could  manipulate  machine  without  knowledge  of  judges  or 
clerks.  The  voter  could  hardly  do  it  in  a  minute,  but  that 
depends  upon  the  voter  "how  smart  he  w^as."    "The  re- 


Testimony  of  Amos  Miller.  5 

mark  would  apply  to  anyone  who  could  get  access  to  it  and 
wanted  to  do  it." 

37  State  Board,  in  examining  places  for  voting  for  inde- 
pendent candidates,  did  not  test  whether  one  could  write 
29  names  in  the  space  allotted. 

39  Witness  thinks  that  examination  of  one  machine  of  a 
type  is  sufficient  examination  to  cover  all  machines  of  that 
type ;  thinks  that  is  the  law. 

41  Witness  was  informed  that  the  Election  Commission- 
ers said  that  the  twenty  machines  must  be  examined, 
additional  to  the  ones  already  examined  by  the  State 

42  Board.    One  fee  was  paid  for  the  twenty  machines. 

Senator  Lajs^dee.  Q.  Now,  you  stated,  in  giving  the 
.  machines  you  examined  the  first  time,  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine,  that  the  second  time  you  made  an  exami- 
nation, it  was  a  Standard,  at  the  request  of  the  Empire. 
Then  the  Empire  had  two  machines,  you  examined  one  at 
one  time  and  one  at  another,  but  they  were  different 
types  of  machines? 

A.    Well,  United  States  Standard. 

Q.  Yes,  the  Standard  once  and  the  Empire;  first  the 
Empire  and  then  the  Standard,  so  that  the  second  exami- 
nation you  made  at  the  request  of  the  Empire  was  not 
of  the  same  machine,  it  was  of  a  different  machine,  it 
was  of  a  different  machine,  wasn't  it?  A.  It  was  of  the 
same  type,  as  I  understand  it. 

43  The  witness  will  not  undertake  to  say  that  it  was  the 
same  type  at  this  late  day. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  The  testimony  of  the  witness  shows 
that  the  first  examination  of  the  Standard  was  June  7, 
1904.  In  March,  1911,  a  request  was  made  to  examine  an 
Empire  and  in  the  witness'  note  he  states  that  it  was  the 
same  type  as  the  United  States  Standard,  but  the  wit- 
ness examined  it  as  an  Empire. 

44  Mr.  Denebx.  The  fact  is  that  166  Standard  Ma- 
chines were  used  in  the  election  of  April  4th. 

45  The  witness  says  the  first  examination  of  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machines  was  March  20th,  1911;  March  28th  exam- 
ined the  twenty  and  in  December  following  examined  an- 
other Empire*  Machine.  "A.  Well,  on  the  28th  of 
March,  which  is  between  the  times  that  we  have  examined 
those  other  two  Empire  Voting  Machines,  we  examined 
the  twenty  machines  and  the  minutes  states  that  the 
Board  examined  twenty  machines,  the  same  known  as 


6  Testimony  of  Morris  Emerson. 

United  States  Voting    Machines,  the  type  of    machine 
which  was  examined  by  the  Board  June  7th,  1904." 

49  Morris  Embrsox: 

Lives  at  Lincoln,  Illinois.  Has  been  a  newspaper  man 
37  years,  all  his  life.  Has  published  and  edited  news- 
papers at  Albion,  Mt.  Vernon  and  Lincoln,  Illinois.    Ap- 

50  pointed  member  of  Voting  Machine  Commission  1903  and 
served  ever  since.  Thinks  he  examined  about  twelve  to 
fifteen  machines  in  that  time  and  approved  all  but  one. 
All  examinations  made  in  Chicago  at  the  office  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  with  one  exception; 
that  was  the  last  examination  of  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine. 

51  The  Election  Commissioners  were  present  but  did  not 
take  part  in  the  examination.  Some  examinations  took 
half  a  day;  some  all  day.  Didn't  take  machines  apart. 
Examined  restricting  devices,  lock-outs,  group  voting, 
and  women's  voting.     The  only  time  primary  elections 

52  were  mentioned  to  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine 
Examiners  until  the  last  examination,  was  "just  pre- 
vious to  the  adoption  of  the  primary  law  in  this  state." 
The  examination  was  made  in  March  and  the  primaries 
came  off  the  following  April,  1911. 

53  The  Board  never  took  machines  apart.  Did  not  have 
any  expert  sent  for  by  the  Election  Commission  to  as- 
sist them.  Demonstrators  of  the  machines  were  pres- 
ent who  demonstrated  the  features  of  machines  and  the 
Board  tested  them  afterwards  in  voting.  Thinks  Judge 
Miller  and  himself  voted  on  the  machine  when  the  demon- 
strators were  not  present.  The  State  Board  was  shown 
the  keys  to  the  doors  in  the  back  of  the  machine  and  was 
"told  that  one  key  Avas  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 

54  Democratic  judge  and  the  other  key  in  the  hands  of  the 
Republican  judge."  The  lower  key  was  controlled  by  the 
custodian,  not  by  the  judges  and  clerks.  The  State  Board 
examined  the  mechanism  behind  the  lower  door  con- 
trolled by  the  custodian.  Witness  could  not  see  how  any 
one  individual  could  manipulate  machine. 

Q.  Well,  the  custodian  could  easily  do  it,  couldn't  he? 
A.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  custodian,  when  the  elec- 
tion is  in  progress? 

Q.    No,  the  custodian  at  the  storage  house.     A.    The 


Voting  Machine  Defects  and  Limitations.  7 

presumption  is  that  the  machine  is  to  be  set  by  the  judges 
after  it  is  placed  in  the  booth. 

Q.    That  is  it.    A.    Yes,  when  you  put  the  machine  up, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  judges,  the  judges,  to  see  that  the 
55    machine  is  set  properly   and  registers  in  counting  and 
everything  is  all  right. 

Q.  You  were  examined  on  the  law,  I  think.  They  have 
no  key  to  the  lower  door;  they  have  nothing  to  do  with 
putting  up  the  restricting  devices;  the  judges  are  spe- 
cially prohibited  by  law.    A.    If  that  is  the  case — 

Q.  I  don't  want  to  let  the  answer  stand  without  call- 
ing your  attention  to  that.  A.  If  that  is  the  case,  any- 
body could  manipulate  the  machine. 

Q.     The  custodian  could!     A.     Yes,  anybody  could. 
5^         The  judges  could  not  turn  the  wheels  from  the  rear, 

57  only  from  the  front.  The  judges  could  not  set  the  ma- 
chine to  register  fraudulently  or  fail  to  register.  The 
custodian  could.  The  machine  could  be  set  so  that  the 
voter  could  vote  for  five  candidates  or  any  number;  just 
according  to  how  it  is  set. 

58  "We  never  made  an  examination  on  them  (primary 
elections).  I  suggested  at  the  time,  referring  to  the  time 
at  the  examination  just  previous  to  the  primary  election, 
that  I  did  not  think  a  machine  could  be  manufactured  to 
meet  the  demands  of  the  primary  in  this  state;  that  it 
would  be  entirely  too  cumbersome." 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr'.  McEwen. 

Q.  You  made  and  signed  the  reports,  copies  of  which 
have  been  produced  here,  wherein  you  stated  that  the  Em- 
pire machine  could  lock  out  and  confine  a  voter  to  vot- 
ing his  party  candidate?     A.    Yes. 

Q.    Did  the  Empire  Machine  do  that?    A.    Yes. 

59  Q.  Let  me  direct  your  attention;  this  portion  is  the 
same  in  each  of  the  reports,  one  in  March  and  one  also 
in  December.  "We  also  find  that  the  machine  complies 
with  the  Illinois  law  relating  to  the  use  of  machines  at 
primaries  and  that  it  can  be  so  set  by  the  Inspector  of 
Elections  that  the  voter  can  vote  only  for  the  candidates 
of  the  party  with  whom  he  has  announced  his  affiliation, 
even  though  more  than  one  party  appears  thereon."  A. 
It  could  be,  if  you  make  the  machine  big  enough,  there 
is  no  question  about  what  it  could  be  made,  but  to  do  so 
it  would  be  cumbersome. 


8  Testimony  of  Morris  Emerson. 

60  In  making  the  statement  I  had  in  mind  the  immense 
primary  ballot  in  Cook  County  at  that  particular  time. 
The  State  Board  certificate  simply  covers  this,  that  the 
machine  could  be  extended  and  you  could  vote  500  on 
the  machine.  The  machine  could  be  set  so  that  more 
than  three  votes  could  be  cast  for  candidates  for  the 
Legislature. 

61  If  the  machine  is  wrongly  set  by  the  custodian,  the 
person  who  inspects  the  machine  could  discover  it. 
Manipulation  would  require  the  use  of  three  keys  and 
the  connivance  of  three  persons,  the  custodian  and  the 
Democratic  and  Eepublican  judges   of  election. 

62  If  the  custodian  locked  the  key  for  one  candidate,  for 
instance,  the  State's  Attorney,  the  voter  could  discover 
that  it  was  locked. 

63  The  State  Board  examined  voting  machines  with  ref- 
erence to  the  requirements  of  the  Illinois  law  and  hon- 
estly believed,  and  their  best  judgment  was,  that  the  ma- 
chines did  comply  with  the  Illinois  law. 


VOLUME  II. 

Afternoon  Session,  July  22d,  1913. 

71  MoERis  Emeeson  (continued) : 

Witness  thought  that  judges  had  access  to  the  lower 
rear  door  and  that  idea  entered  into  his  judgment  in  pass- 
ing upon  the  machine.  Now,  witness  thinks  it  impossible 
for  judges  to  adjust  restrictive  part  of  machine  without 

72  custodian.  Judges  would  have  to  have  keys  to  the  entire 
machine,  the  custodian's  key,  the  Democratic  judge's  key, 
and  the  Republican's  judge's  key.  The  machine  could  be 
set  so  that  the  voter,  at  the  time  of  the  election,  could 
vote  for  candidates  of  his  own  party  and  of  some  other 
party  or  parties  at  the  same  time.  The  independent  voter, 

74  who  desired  to  write  names  in  the  slides,  might  not  be 
able  to  vote  in  ten  minutes.  Witness  thinks  that  the 
objection  to  the  size  of  the  machine,  in  primaries,  would 
apply  to  all  machines ;  believes  voting  machines  would  be 
impracticable  in  a  primary  under  our  present  law. 

76  Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  tendency  of 
elections  in  the  matter  of  voting  at  primaries  is  that  we 


Testimony  of  Morris  Emerson.  9 

will  have  a  larger  number  of  candidates  in  the  future 
or  less  number! 

Mr.  Deneen.    I  object  to  that. 

The  Chairman.    I  did  not  get  that. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  am  asking  him  in  regard  to  the  tend- 
ency of  increase  or  decrease  in  the  number  of  names  to  be 
voted  at  primaries,  whether  the  tendency  is  to  increase 
or  decrease,  or  remain  as  it  is.  In  considering  a  voting 
machine,  necessarily  the  element  of  the  future  would  en- 
ter into  its  practicability  and  desirability  for  purchase. 
I  want  to  get  at  Mr.  Emerson's  ideas  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  machine,  any  machine,  could  be  used. 

78  A.  "Well,  we  certified  to  the  Secretary  of  State  that 
that  machine  would  meet  the  requirements  of  the  primary- 
law  and  I  say  that  yet,  but,  as  I  said,  I  would  accompany 
it  with  the  statement  that  it  will  be  so  cumbersome  and 
so  large  that  it  would  embarrass  a  voter  so  that  he  would 
hardly  know  how  to  operate  the  machine;  he  would  get 
lost,  he  would  get  in  a  maze  of  keys  there,  and  names, 
and  would  lose  him,  but  I  think  that  the  machine  is  best 
adapted  to  where  there  is  a  short  ticket  and  fewer  names. 
I  •  think  the  machine  is  very  desirable  in  any  election 
where  you  can  have — where  there  is  no  cumulative  vot- 

79  ing.  Cumulative  voting  is  a  bad  thing  on  the  machine; 
it  is  hard  for  a  man  to  divide  up  his  vote  if  he  wants  to 
vote  for  someone  not  on  the  ballot,  which  he  has  a  right 
to  do  under  our  law" — etc.  "As  between  the  machines 
and  cumulative  voting,  I  would  abolish  cumulative  voting. 

81  "I  think  the  number  of  straight  ballots  would  be  de- 
creased on  the  machines,  because  a  man  would  be  in  a 
hurry  to  vote." 

82  The  witness  thinks  that  the  ordinary  election  shows  70 
per  cent,  scratched  and  30  per  cent,  straight  votes. 

83  The  interlocking  primary  device  on  the  machine  is  con- 

84  trolled  by  the  judges.  The  voter  can  protest  if  the  judges 
lock  him  out  of  his  party  ticket,  and  can  leave  the  ma- 

85  chine  for  that  purpose  without  voting.  The  Voting  Ma- 
chine Commissioners  never  passed  any  machine  as  to 
primaries  except  that  it  could  be  made  to  meet  the  pur- 
poses of  the  primary.     The  primary  switch  was  on  the 

86  Empire  Machine  when  the  Voting  Machine  Commission- 
ers examined  it  and  it  was  shown  to  them.  It  is  left  on 
the  machines  at  the  regular  elections.  The  same  switch 
is  used  to  lock  out  women  voting  on  anything  but  Uni- 
versity Trustees. 


10  Testimony  of  Isaac  N.  Powell. 

89  Isaac  N.  Powell: 

Eesides  6826  Bennett  avenue,  Chicago.  Was  appointed 
Chief  Clerk  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in 
May,  1895,  and  served  in  that  office  continuously  from 
December,  1894,  until  March,  1909. 

90  The  voting  machine  matter  was  called  to  the  attention 
of  the  Board  about  1904.  One  voting  machine  was  used 
in  the  following  spring  elections  and  another  in  the  fall 
election.  After  the  question  had  been  voted  on  in  the 
fall  of  1904  witness  thinks  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 

91  missioners  advertised  for  bids.  The  Board  delayed  ac- 
tion until  the  Supreme  Court  passed  on  the  question 
whether  the  voting  machine  was  valid.  Witness  thinks 
in  1905  the  Board  received  some  tentative  bids  which  the 
witness  thinks  were  returned  without  being  opened. 

In  1905  about  a  dozen  machines  were  used  in  the  April 
election  and  a  number  in  the  fall  election;  also  in  the 
spring  election  of  1906,  or  1907,  37  machines  were  used. 

92  The  first  appropriation  (of  $100,000)  for  voting  ma- 
chines was  made  by  the  City  Council  in  1907.  The  Board 
advertised  for  bids  to  be  opened  Olctober  31st,  1907.  These 
were  all  finally  rejected. 

Q.  What  was  done  after  the  bids  were  opened  with  ref- 
erence to  examining  machines?  A.  We  advertised  for 
bids  along  in  the  summer,  about  July,  along  about  the 
10th  or  15th  of  July,  and  on  the  31st  of  October,  or  about 
then,  the  Board  opened  the  bids  and  took  charge  of  the 
machines  that  had  been  submitted  in  accordance  with  the 
bids  and  turned  them  over  to  the  experts  that  had  been 
employed  by  the  Board;  and  they  also  used  them  in  a 
number  of  exhibitions  that  were  held  there  for  the  pur- 
pose of  judges  and  clerks  of  election  and  citizens  gener- 
ally that  wanted  to  vote  on  them. 

The  experts  were  C.  E.  Depuy  of  the  Lewis  Institute; 
Mr.  Leutweiler  of  the  University  of  Illinois,  and  Mr.  Ol- 
son of  the  Fort  Dearborn  Machine  Company.  They  were 
also  examined  by  officials  of  the  Board ;  not  by  experts. 
9'3  The  public,  members  of  different  clubs  in  town  and 
public  officials  were  invited  to  inspect  the  machines  and 
two  days  were  set  apart  for  examination  by  Election 
Officials.  The  examinations  occupied  40  or  50  days,  and- 
the  companies  were  then  given  40  days'  time  to  satisfy 


Examination  and  Rejection  of  Voting  Machines.        11 

the  Board's  idea  of  a  practical  macliine  and  they  came 
back  in  March.    The  bids  were  all  reject'^d. 

94  About  January  15,  1909,  the  Election  Commissioners 
advertised  for  bids  and  the  time  for  opening  bids  was 
set  for  September.  An  appropriation  of  flOO,000  was 
again  made  by  the  City  Council.  Witness  appeared  be- 
fore the  Finance  Committee  in  the  interest  of  the  appro- 
priation and  did  not  ask  for  more  than  $100,000.  Wit- 
ness was  not  connected  with  the  office  when  the  bids  were 
opened  on  September  15,  1909.  Had  left  the  office  in 
March. 

95  The  southern  terminus  of  the  Election  Commissioners' 
jurisdiction  is  138th  street,  about  Hegewisch,  about  15 
or  16  miles  from  the  Cliicago  courthouse.  The  northern 
terminus  is  Devon  avenue,  about  10  miles  from  the  court- 
bouse  ;  the  western  terminus  about  6  or  8  miles  from  the 
courthouse.  The  territory  extends  about  28  miles  north 
and  south  and  6  to  8  miles  east  and  west.  Chicago  aver- 
ages about  four  elections  each  year. 

Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

97  United  Standard  machines  were  used  in  different  tests 
in  1904  and  1905  in  the  spring.  In  the  fall,  United  States 
Standard,  the  Dean,  the  Columbia,  the  Winslow,  the  In- 
ternational, and  the  Triumph,  and  also  the  Ball  machine. 
About  six  machines  j3ut  in  bids  in  answer  to  the  adver- 
tisement. 

98  Witness  examined  some  machines  himself  and  heard 
discussions  in  the  meetings  of  the  Election  Commission- 
ers. On  some  machines  they  could  vote  for  more  people 
than  the  law  permitted,  and  in  other  cases  they  could 
not  vote  for  candidates  the  law  permitted  them  to  vote 
for.  All  the  machines  were  in  this  condition  to  a  more 
or  less  extent. 

99  Witness  does  not  remember  doing  it  on  the  United 
States  Standard  Machine. 

100 .  Mr.  McEwen  reads  from  an  article  written  by  the  wit- 
ness :  "The  writer  has  yet  to  see  any  machine  that  would 
permit  a  voter  to  spoil  his  ballot  in  any  particular.  It 
is  true,  the  machines  will  not  require  a  voter  to  vote  for 
all  the  candidates  for  whom  he  is  entitled  to  vote,  but 
it  will  permit  him  to  vote  for  more  candidates  for  the 
office  than  the  law  permits  and  thereby  lose  his  vote  as 
to  that  office." 


12  Testimony  of  Isaac  N.  Powell. 

The  witness  said  in  the  article  that  the  machine  reduced 
opportunities  for  dishonesty.  Witness  had  no  knowledge 
of  machines  except  in  this  community. 

102  The  machine  is  subject  to  the  dishonesty  of  men.    Wit- 

103  ness  would  not  make  some  of  the  statements  in  the  maga- 
zine article  as  strong  now  as  when  he  wrote  it,  because 
of  later  experience  and  experiments  of  experts.  The  ar- 
ticle stated  Chicago  would  save  $76,000  a  year,  but  wit- 
ness now  thinks  the  statement  would  need  revision. 

Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

105  When  the  article  was  written,  machines  had  not  been 
adopted  and  had  been  used  in  only  one  or  two  precincts. 
The  article  did  not  favor  any  specific  machine. 

107  _  At  the  time  of  writing  the  article,  witness  did  not  have 
in  mind  the  territory  over  wiiich  voting  machines  would 
be  hauled.  Weight  and  size  of  machine  would  make  a 
big  difference  in  this  regard. 

108  Witness,  as  Chief  Clerk  of  Election  Board,  prepared 
specifications  principally;  the  Board  and  the  witness  col- 
laborated. They  were  approved  by  the  Board.  The  pres- 
ent Empire  Machine  had  not  been  originated  when  the 
witness  left  the  Board.  The  Empire  was  a  combination 
of  other  machines. 

109  The  witness  thinks  he  was  there  when  the  combination 
was  made. 


Abel  A.  Bach  : 

6005  La  Salle  street.  Now  connected  with  the  Fire 
Marshal's  office.  Became  election  commissioner  in  1905 
and  served  until  December,  1910.    The  Board  called  for 

110  bids  on  voting  machines  and  companies  submitted  bids, 
witness  thinks,  in  1908.  In  1907  Election  Commissioners 
placed  machines  in  certain  precincts  for  experimental 
purposes;  thinks  between  twenty  and  thirty  machines. 

112  Bids  were  called  for  by  commissioners  in  1907  and  were 
opened  about  March,  1908.  Bids  had  been  opened  in 
October,  1907,  and  rejected  March  23,  1908.  Between 
these  dates  the  election  commissioners  had  a  public  in- 
vestigation of  all  voting  machines  and  had  three  experts 
examine  them.  Professor  Depuy,  Professor  Leutweiler 
and  Mr.  Olson.    At  the  Public  Investigation  the  competi- 


Rejection  of  Voting  Machines  by  Former  Commission.  13 

tors  examined  rival  machines.  The  competitors  were  not 
allowed  to  go  inside  the  rival  machines,  but  were  allowed 
to  ask  questions  and  demonstrate  and  "Beat  it  if  they 
could."    The  result  was  all  machines  were  rejected. 

113  Bids  were  again  called  for  January  15,  1909.  These 
were  opened  September  15,  1909.  An  appropriation  of 
$100,000,  all  that  was  asked  for,  was  made  by  the  City 
Council.  Machines  examined,  witness  thinks,  were  the 
Triumph,  the  Wilcox,  Empire,  and  the  Winslow.  Bids 
opened  September  15,  1909,  were  rejected  because  the 
reports  from  the  Board's  experts  were  against  the  ma- 

114  chine.  Invitations  were  issued  by  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  to  the  judges   and  clerks  after  we  got 

•  through  our  examination  and  we  instracted  the  secretary 
of  the  Board  to  notify  the  newspapers.  There  were  quite 
a  few  objections;  the  machines  were  not  considered  re- 

115  liable.  Too  cumbersome,  too  heavy,  too  large.  The  ex- 
pense of  delivering  back  and  forth  was  too  great.  The 
Board  issued  a  statement  at  the  time  it  ruled  rejecting 
all  machines  which  was  read  into  the  record: 

"As  in  the  previous  investigation,  the  machines  were 
thoroughly  inspected  and  tested  by  three  mechanical  ex- 
perts at  the  instance  of  the  Board.  Their  detailed  re- 
ports show  that,  while  substantial  improvements  have 
been  made  within  the  past  year,  yet  there  are  still  remain- 
ing such  defects  in  the  mechanical  arrangements  of  all  the 
machines  submitted  as  to  preclude  their  practical  use  in 
this  city. 

"This  Board  is  of  the  opinion  that,  among  the  many 
necessary  essentials  required  by  the  specifications,  none 
is  of  greater  importance  than  that  which  requires  a  ma- 
chine to  record  the  vote  in  strict  compliance  with  the  law, 
and  absolutely  prevent  a  person  voting  for  more  candi- 
dates than  there  are  officers  to  be  elected. 

"A  machine  which  can  be  so  manipulated  as  to  permit 
a  voter  to  vote  for  more  candidates  than  the  law  permits, 
is  fatally  defective  and  its  use  would  only  be  productive 
of  protest  and  costly  litigation. 

"Each  machine  is  found  to  be  seriously  defective  and 
their  purchase  at  this  time  impracticable;  therefore,  all 
bids  will  be  rejected. 

"The  defect  in  each  machine  will  be  shown  to  the  rep- 
resentative of  that  machine. 

"This  Board,  in  response  to  an  ovenvhelming  vote  on 


14  Former  Commission  Defines  Voting  Machine  Requirements. 

the  proposition,  lias  faithfully  tried  to  find  a  satisfactory 
voting  machine.  Our  efforts  so  far  have  been  in  vaiii. 
We  do  not  know  when  we  will  advertise  again  for  bids, 
if  at  all,  but  we  desire  to  purchase  voting  machines  as 
soon  as  one  that  is  satisfactory  is  presented. 

"Therefore,  we  desire  to  announce  that  if,  any  time 
after  the  1st  day  of  December,  1909,  anyone  believes  that 
he  or  they  have  a  voting  machine  that  will  answer  our 
purposes,  we  invite  you  to  bring  it  to  the  Board  and  the 
same  will  be  inspected. 

"It  seems  to  us  that  this  will  be  a  proper  time  again 
to  give  all  the  suggestions  we  are  able  to  in  reference  to 
the  kind  of  a  machine  that  the  Board  wants  to  buy. 

' 'First.  The  machine  must  allow  voting  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

"Second.  The  machine  must  x^revent  any  voting  not 
in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

"Third.  It  must  be  accurate,  positive,  and  incapable 
of  fraudulent  manipulation. 

"Fourth.  We  want  as  small  a  machine  as  is  prac- 
ticable. 

"Fifth.    We  want  as  light  a  machine  as  practicable. 

"Sixth.  And,  taking  all  the  foregoing  into  considera- 
tion, we  want  as  cheap  a  machine  as  possible. 

' '  Seventh.  When  such  a  machine  is  presented  to  us,  a 
purchase  will  be  made." 

116  Witness  has  been  in  the  house-moving  and  teaming 
business,  and  took  into  account  the  weight  and  transpor- 

117  tation  of  machines  in  considering  this.  Also  the  cost  of 
printing  ballots  for  the  machine  and  under  the  Australian 
system.  Also  the  question  of  possibility  of  tampering 
with  machine;  and  the  Board  found,  from  public  demon- 
stration and  what  experts  said,  that  they  could  be  tam- 
pered with. 

Different  machines  had  certain  good  qualities,  and  a 
combination  was  suggested  by  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners. 

119  The  Empire  machine  was  created  out  of  the  Dean,  Co- 
lumbia, Standard  and  Empire  after  the  fall  of  1909.  This 
new  machine  was  submitted  to  the  Election  Commission- 
ers and  was  also  rejected,  on  the  reports  of  the  Board's 
experts,  for  practically  tlie  same  reasons. 

The  witness,  on  several  occasions,  tried  to  vote  on  the 

120  Empire  Machine.  Once,  shortly  before  the  election  of 
November,  1912.    Found  he  could  vote  3J  votes  for  Kep- 


Defects  of  Empire  Voting  Machine.  15 

resentative.    When  the  machines  were  on  the  floor  of  the 
Election  Commissioners'  room,  the  employe  would  call 

121  attention  and  say,  "I  could  vote  11  votes  for  County 
Election  Commissioners,"  and  "I  could  do  so  and  so." 
Witness  said  that  machines  will  be  adjusted  before  elec- 
tion and  paid  no  further  attention.  The  Election  Com- 
missioners kept  20  or  30  or  more  expert  mechanics  at 
the  rooms  to  go  from  precinct  to  precinct  to  repair  ma- 
chines that  got  out  of  order,  and  automobiles  to  carrj'" 
them  to  the  polling  places. 

122  In  using  machines  for  experimental  purposes,  witness 
thinks  ballot  boxes  were  kept  at  the  polling  places  so  the 
voter  could  take  his  choice.  The  Election  Commissioners 
asked  for  not  more  than  $100,000  and  were  given  to  un- 
derstand they  could  have  more  if  they  needed  it.  Only 
$100,000  was  appropriated. 

12.3  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  witness  voted  3i  votes  three  or  four  days  before 
election  day.  Didn't  try  to  do  it  election  day,  but  voted 
a  ballot. 

124  The  machine  was  probably  not  adjusted  when  the  wit- 
ness voted  3J  votes. 

125  The  Board  advertised  twice  for  bids.     The  witness  is 
127  somewhat  of  a  machinist.    The  Board  accepted  the  views 

of  the  three  experts.     The  experts  made  written  reports 
which  were  examined  by  the  witness. 

129  Bids  were  asked  for  by  the  Election  Commissioners 

130  October  31,  but  opened  in  March,  1908.  The  next  bids 
were  September  15,  1909.  The  Election  Commissioners 
employed  the  same  experts  as  before.  The  Empire  was 
under  consideration  in  both  examinations.  The  witness 
thinks  that  the  first  time  the  Standard  was  the  favored 
machine  and  the  last  time  the  Empire  was  the  favored 
machine. 

131  Witness  thinks  all  experts  reported  it  would  not  be 
safe  to  purchase  machines.  Witness  has  no  feeling 
against  Election  Commissioners  because  of  circumstances 
of  his  removal  from  office  of  Election  Commissioner.  Has 

132  not  any  particular  love  for  the  Judge.  And  has  some  liti- 
gation growing  out  of  his  removal.  Witness  is  not  ma- 
chinist enough  to  have  a  judgment  upon  the  limit  of  light- 
ness of  voting  machines.    Witness  does  not  think  that  a 


16  Testimony  of  Abel  A.  Bach. 

voting  machine  of  the  same  weight  and  size  is  practicable 
in  Chicago. 

136  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Mitchell. 

The  machine  the  witness  cast  3i  votes  on  for  Repre- 
sentative was  a  machine  the  Election  Commissioners  had 
in  the  third  precinct  of  the  35th  ward.  Presumes  it  was 
the  Empire.  Many  people  were  present.  Witness  could 
not  give  the  date. 

138  The  witness  also  voted  experimentally  for  11  County 
Commissioners.  Ten  was  the  legal  number.  Doesn't  re- 
member on  what  machine. 

Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  was  not  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners,  or  judge  or  clerk  of  election,  or  Avorker, 
when  he  cast  3|  votes  for  Representative. 

139  The  witness  voted  almost  all  the  machines  that  were 
submitted.  The  witness  was  removed  from  office  by  Judge 

142  Owens.  "We  were  called  into  the  office  of  Owens,  Judge 
Owens'  office,  and  there  he  told  us  that  he  was  glad  to 
meet  us,  and  he  said,  'You  fellows  are  all  right  and  I  have 
nothing  against  you,  but  the  people  elected  me  County 
Judge  and  I  would  like  to  appoint  your  successors. '  Mr. 
Hudson  said,  'Your  Honor,  I  have  two  years  to  serve  and 
I  have —  I  don't  know  that  I  have  done  anything  that  you 
would  want  my  removal  for,  my  resignation.'  He  said, 
'This  is  politics,'  and  he  said,  'A  man  that  can't  be  a 
good  loser  has  no  business  in  the  game.'  The  next  morn- 
ing at  11  o'clock  we  got  word  that  charges  had  been  pre- 
ferred and  heard  at  10." 

143  Doctor  Taylor  was  the  witness'  successor. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  You  got  word  at  eleven!  What  did 
you  do  then !    What  did  you  do ! 

"A.  We  adjourned  until  the  afternoon,  and  later  on  in 
the  afternoon  we  were  unprepared  to  go  on,  you  know; 
he  practically  placed  us  under  arrest  and  kept  us  in  the 
custody  of  the  court,  and  about  nine  o'clock  he  removed 
us. 

" Senator  Babe.    Q.    Nine  o'clock  at  night! 

"A.  I  think  between  seven  and  nine  he  removed  us 
from  office. 

"The  Ch.\irman.    Q.    At  night! 


Testimony  of  Abel  A.  Bach.  17 

"A.    Yes. 

"Q.  In  custody  of  the  court.  What  do  you  mean  by 
that?  Explain  so  that  the  Committee  understands  you. 
A.  He  said  that  Mr.  Bach  and  Mr.  Hudson  will  remain 
in  the  custody  of  the  court,  and  during  that  time  he  sent 
a  man  over  and  seized  their  office  and  took  charge  of  the 
office. ' ' 

149  The  witness  does  not  think  the  machine  has  been  im- 
proved since  the  last  time  it  was  before  the  Board,  when 
he  was  Election  Commissioner.  "It  is  the  same  machine, 
as  I  remember  it." 

150  The  witness'  case  on  removal  was  appealed  to  the  Ap- 
pellate Court  and  Judge  Owens '  decision  affirmed ;  and  to 
the  Supreme  Court,  which  held  it  had  no  jurisdiction. 

'         The   circumstances  of  removal  have  given  the  witness 
some  feeling,  but  not  against  his  successor. 

151  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

When  witness  was  Election  Commissioner,  Chicago  had 
1,329  precincts.  The  Board  also  exercised  jurisdiction 
over  the  Town  of  Cicero.  Invitations  were  sent  out  by 
the  Board  to  all  judges  and  clerks  of  election  to  inspect 
voting  machines  submitted  to  the  Board. 


152  Thomas  F.  Judge: 

Lives  3610  Pine  Grove  avenue.  Was  Election  Commis- 
sioner for  about  twelve  years.  Appointed  in  1898  and 
served  to  November,  1910.  Represented  the  minority, 
the  Democratic  party. 

153  Witness  had  to  do  with  voting  machine  question.  After 
adoption  of  voting  machine  law  in  1904,  bids  were  adver- 
tised for  and  machines  were  sent  up  to  the  Election  Com- 
missioners'  office  and  experts  Depuy,  Breckenridge,  Leut- 
weiler  and  Olson  were  employed.    All  bids  were  rejected, 

154  because  the  experts  said  that  they  did  not  cover  the  law 
as  laid  down,  and  the  size  of  the  machine,  and  the  cost 
it  would  make  the  taxpayers  to  handle  it.  "I  did  not  be- 
lieve there  was  any  saving,  even  if  the  machine  was  per- 
fect under  the  law,  I  thought  the  cost  of  transportation 
would  exceed  any  saving;  that  was  my  reason." 

155  The  experts  made  separate  examinations  and  did  not 
meet  until  after  they  had  made  final  report. 


r 


18  Testimony  of  Thomas  F.  Judge. 

The  bids  called  for  January  15, 1909,  and  were  not  to  be 
opened  until  September  15,  1909.  When  the  machines 
were  sent  to  the  Election  Commissioners'  rooms  the  ex- 
perts of  competitors'  machines  were  permitted  to  see 
what  they  could  do  with  them.  The  test  lasted  a  long 
time,  probably  40  days. 
156  On  voting  to  reject  all  machines,  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners did  not  decide  on  party  lines.  Invitations  to  in- 
spect machines  were  issued  by  the  Commissioners  to  the 
editors  of  all  the  newspapers  in  the  city,  the  clubs  that 
were  social  or  quasi-political. 

158  Witness  had  no  mechanical  ability  to  examine  machines. 

159  Witness  read  reports  of  Olson,  Depuy  and  Leutweiler. 
When  the  report  of  experts  said  the  machine  did  not 
come  within  the  law,  that  settled  it  in  witness'  mind. 
When  Election  Commissioner,  witness  most  favored  vot- 
ing machines  on  the  ground  of  expense.  Did  not  then 
think  machines  improved  honesty  of  elections.  Also 
thought  machines  could  be  set  wrong  before  voting  be- 

167  gan.  Also  witness  did  the  rubber-band  trick.  The  wit- 
ness examined  machines  closely  enough  to  have  a  fair 
judgment  as  to  whether  or  not  they  would  improve  elec- 
tion conditions  and  concluded  that  the  machines  would 

168  not  improve  conditions  at  all.  Witness  thinks  that  coun- 
ters can  be  changed  on  machines  by  judges  and  clerks 

170  if  they  had  a  key.  Witness  thinks  that  election  returns 
can  be  falsified  by  the  judges  reading  falsely  from  the 
counters  on  the  back  of  the  machines  to  the  clerks  who 
take  down  the  figures. 


Testimony  of  John  D.  Cannon.  19 

VOLUME  III. 

Morning  Session,  Wednesday,  July  23, 1913. 

John  D.  Cannon  : 

Besides  1811  Larchmont  avenue.  Since  July  11,  1911, 
Superintendent  of  Employment  under  the  Lincoln  Park 
Board,  Civil  Service  Law.  Was  employed  previously,  for 
approximately  30  years,  with  the  Western  Electric  Com- 
pany, and  nearly  five  years  with  the  Consolidated  Fire 

177  Alarm  Company.  Was  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  for  about  three  years  and  for  a  little 
more  than  that,  chief  clerk  of  the  Board.  Election  Com- 
missioner from  1905  until  December,  1910.  Had  to  do 
with  voting  machines.    First  bids  were  advertised  for  in 

178  the  spring  of  1907.  "When  bids  were  opened  in  October 
or  November,  eight  or  nine  companies  bid,  as  I  remember 
it."  "As  I  remember  it,  all  these  bids  were  voluntarily 
withdrawn  and  the  bidders  agreed  to  submit  machines  for 
experimental  purposes.  Machines  were  set  up  in  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners'  office  and  tests  made.  Another  ad- 
vertisement was  made  in  1907  for  bids  to  be  opened  Oc- 
tober 31, 1907.  In  the  meantime,  the  Council  had  made  an 
appropriation  of  $100,000. 

179  After  the  bids  were  opened  October  31st,  the  Board 
employed  experts  to  examine  machines  and  answer  cer- 
tain questions.  At  the  first  examination  the  experts  were 
Professor  Breekenridge,  of  the  University  of  Illinois; 
Mr.  Depuy,  of  the  Lewis  Institute,  and  Mr.  Olson,  of  the 
Fort  Dearborn  Manufacturing  Company.  Professor 
Breekenridge  took  a  position  with  some  college  in  the 
East, — Yale  or  Harvard, — and  his  successor  completed  the 
examination.    All  bids  were  rejected. 

Besides  the  experts,  all  civic  bodies  were  invited  by  the 
County  Judge  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Board,  to  examine 
the  voting  devices  on  exhibition. 

180  For  all  judges  and  clerks  of  election,  certain  days  and 
hours  were  set.  The  general  public  was  invited,  too.  Also 
the  newspapers.  There  were  then  about  1,326  precincts 
and  about  6,500  persons  w-ere  invited  to  inspect  the  ma- 
chines of  judges  and  clerks  alone. 

The  Board  advertised  for  bids  about  January  15,  1909, 


20    Action  of  Former  Board  of  Election  Commissioners. 

to  be  opened  September  15th.  A  long  time  was  given  to 
give  everybody  an  opportunity  to  present  voting  devices 
to  the  Board  and  to  get  the  fullest  competition.  In  that 
year  also  an  appropriation  of  $100,000  was  made  by  the 
Council  when  the  budget  was  made  up.  The  1909  adver- 
tisement brought  in,  the  witness  thinks,  four  machines. 
The  Triumph,  the  International,  the  Wilcox,  and  the  Em- 
pire. 

181  The  same  three  experts  again  examined  the  machines. 

182  The  same  opportunities  were  afforded  to  others  as  be- 
fore, and  the  newspapers,  the  general  public,  invited,  and 
the  judges  and  clerks  of  election  were  requested  to  come 
in,  and  many  of  them  did  come.  As  witness  recalls,  the 
examination  lasted  four  or  five  weeks.    Each  of  the  three 

183  experts  examined  all  three  of  the  machines  and  made  a 
separate  report  on  each  to  the  Board.  Then  a  public 
hearing  was  held,  and  the  agents  of  all  machines  were 
asked  to  prepare  questions  to  be  asked  of  the  demonstra- 
tors of  other  machines  than  his  own  to  be  ready  to  attack 
the  opposing  machine,  and  if  demonstrator,  for  reasons 
of  personal  friendship,  or  other  reasons,  did  not  like  to 
ask  questions  of  fellow  demonstrator,  they  were  asked  to 
hand  in  questions  to  the  Board  so  that  the  Board  might 
ask  them  so  that  the  Board  had  the  experts'  experience 
and  the  knowledge  of  voting  machines  of  all  the  voting 

184  machine  experts  in  the  country.  The  result  was  that  when 
the  rival  demonstrators  were  through  with  the  various 
machines,  there  was  not  much  left  of  them.  They  were 
all  defective  and  all  admitted  they  were  defective.  No 
one  who  saw  the  demonstration  and  examination  would 
recommend  the  purchasing  of  any  of  the  machines  there 
exhibited.  A  combination  of  several  of  the  eight  com- 
panies that  exhibited  was  begun  then  and  there,  and  one 
of  the  representatives  of  the  companies  that  went  into 
the  combine  showed  a  memorandum  indicating  the  interest 
of  each  of  the  companies  that  combined  or  went  into  the 

185  supposed  new  company.  Four  companies  that  had  com- 
bined were  the  Federal,  Dean,  Columbia,  and  the  United 
States  Standard. 

After  the  tests  the  Board  refused  to  purchase  machines. 
The  Board  also  made  a  written  statement  holding  out 
certain  objects  in  regard  to  future  contests  and  set  forth 
certain  features  that  would  have  to  be  in  the  voting  ma- 


Rejection  of  Voting  Machines.  21 

chines.    This  was  given  to  the  public.    It  was  the  state- 
ment read  yesterday. 

The  consolidated  company,  that  is  the  Empire  Com- 

189  pany,  presented  a  machine  afterwards,  either  in  the  early 
part  of  1910,  or  latter  part  of  1909;  that  machine  was 
tested  by  the  three  experts  employed  by  the  Board  was 

190  proven  defective,  and  rejected.  Neither  the  Empire  nor 
any  other  company  presented  a  voting  machine  after  that 
rejection.  As  chief  clerk,  the  witness  looked  into  the 
question  of  transportation  and  storage  of  voting  machines; 
the  cost  of  printing  ballots  to  be  placed  on  the  machine, 
and  every  other  item  that  may  enter  into  the  expense,  to 

191  see  whether  or  not  there  would  be  any  saving  to  the  tax- 
,        payers,  and  "found  there  was  really  ilo  saving  to  be 

made. ' ' 

Thinks  that  the  memorandum  showing  proceedings  of 
the  Board  on  voting  machine  matters  was  left  in  the  files 
of  the  office  and  should  be  in  the  files  now.  The  items 
showing  no  saving,  from  a  financial  standpoint,  from  the. 
use  of  voting  machines,  included  everything  that  entered 
into  the  handling  of  voting  machines  by  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  in  the  territory  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Board. 

192  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  knew  of  favorable  vote  by  the  people  on  vot- 
ing machine  question  at  the  election  of  1904  and  as  Elec- 
tion Commissioner  and  Clerk  was  trying  to  find  some  way 
to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  people.  There  was  a  large 
public  sentiment  in  favor  of  voting  machines. 

193  As  Chief  Clerk  and  Commissioner,  witness  kept  track 
of  every  detail  of  election  matters.  Witness  has  no  means 
of  knowing  the  number  of  fraudulent  votes  counted  or 
cast  in  this  city  at  election. 

194  As  Election  Commissioner,  witness  had  an  opinion  re- 
garding fraudulent  registration  in  the  First  AVard.  The 
Board  erased  many  thousand  names  from  the  First  Ward 
voting  list.  Witness  has  seen  ballots  marked  with  two 
different  kinds  of   markings    called    "short-pencilling." 

195  Witness  knows  of  precincts  in  Chicago  where  well  known 
and  reasonably  popular  men  did  not  receive  their  votes. 

196  Matters  of  frauds  in  elections  mentioned  in  grand  jury 
reports  read  j^esterday,  including  false  representations, 


22  Possibilities  of  Fraud  on  Empire  Machine. 

repeating,  falsification  of  ballots  and  returns  were  in 
vogue  in  witness '  time  and  before  and  after.  Witness  has 
no  opinion  regarding  illegal  voting  in  the  1st,  18th  or  28th 
wards. 

197  Witness  made  a  personal  examination  of  voting  ma- 
chines and  read  Professor  Leutweiler's  report  in  detail. 

198  Witness  thinks  Professor  Leutweiler  rated  United  States 
Standard  Machine  first  as  the  best  mechanically  con- 
structed machine,  but  that  it  was  heavy  and  advised 
against  purchase.    Mr.  Leutweiler  was  also  favorable  to 

199  the  Empire;  and  also  gave  it  first  place,  and  so  did  the 
other  experts,  as  to  mechanical  construction  alone.  Wit- 
ness includes  in  mechanical  construction,  the  engineer- 
ing theory  upon  which  the  macliine  is  designed,  the  char- 
acter of  material  entering  into  its  construction,  the  qual- 
ity of  workmanship  put  upon  those  materials,  and  setting 
up  the  machine. 

The  counting  mechanism  of  nearly  all  machines  was 
manufactured  by  the  Veeder  Manufacturing  Company, 
known  as  the  "Veeder  counter."  All  counters  were  cov- 
ered by  Veeder  patents,  except  the  Dean  Company,  which 
has  a  counter  of  its  own. 

201  On  the  Empire  Voting  Machine,  "By  manipulating  the 
voting  key  and  juggling  and  loosening  it  up  a  bit,  you  can 
get  in  the  lower  House  of  Representatives  as  many  as  44 
votes,  and  on  judges  for  the  Superior  Court  you  could 
vote  for  15,  and  on  County  Commissioners  you  could  vote 
for  11."  This  was  done  when  the  machines  were  checked 
for  voting  by  the  machine's  representative.  They  were 
told,  "Here  are  the  keys  to  your  machine.  Go  and  fix 
your  machine  as  though  it  was  to  be  voted  on  tomorrow 
morning. ' ' 

The  witness  looked  at  the  Empire  Machine  in  his  vot-, 
ing  precinct  last  November,  1912,  and  tested  it.    But  used 

202  the  paper  ballot  on  election  day.  The  witness  knew  of  his 
own  experience  that  you  could  manipulate  the  Empire 
Machine  if  you  could  get  at  the  back  of  it.  "If  I  were 
permitted  to  get  at  the  back  of  the  machine  and  study  its 
mechanism,  I  would  there  learn  enough  about  its  con- 
struction to  go  to  the  front  of  the  machine  and,  by  manip- 

203  ulating  the  voting  key,  as  I  did  do  with  the  Empire  Ma- 
chine, and  vote  the  entire  ticket  when  it  was  supposed 
to  be  cut  out  and  only  permit  the  women  to  vote  for  Uni- 
versity Trustees." 


Testimony  of  John  D.  Cannon.  23 

The  witness  knows  about  protective  counters.  It  gives 
the  total  vote  cast  on  the  machine.  It  cannot  be  gotten 
at.  It  is  sealed.  It  is  set  in  the  machine  and  runs  imtil 

204  it  is  through  running.  No  way  of  opening  it  except  to 
cut  it.  It  is  intended  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  en- 
larging the  number  of  votes  in  reports  of  the  precinct. 

If  the  judges  and  clerks  examine  the  protective  counter 
in  the  morning  and  again  in  the  evening  and  report  on  it, 
it  will  show  by  the  difference  just  how  many  votes  have 
been  cast  that  day.  That  should  tally  with  the  tally  votes 
in  the  poll  book.  The  individual  counters  are  set  back  in 
the  machine,  behind  tlie  line  of  candidates.  They  can  dis- 
connect them  or  lock  them  out  by  removing  the  counter 
rings  that  connect  the  voting  key  to  the  voting  counter. 

205  Disconnecting  the  counters  is  a  very  simple  operation 
for  anyone  who  has  access  to  the  machine.  The  counters 
are  set  by  the  custodian  back  to  zero.  He  gets  at  the  coun- 
ters by  having  access  to  the  back  of  the  board.  It  was 
only  necessary  to  get  at  the  upper  portion  of  the  ma- 
chine to  set  the  counters  on  the  other  machine  which  the 
witness  saw.  The  witness  has  not  seen  the  back  of  the 
machine  in  the  County  Commissioners'  Assembly  Room 

206  now.    The  counters  are  set  with  a  thin  piece  of  wood. 

208  The  witness  did  not  see  the  lock  which  prevents  the 
counter  from  being  moved,  unless  it  is  unlocked.  Eight 
or  nine  parties  bid  on  the  first  machine;  on  the  second, 
four;  the  last  time  only  one,  the  Empire.  The  witness 
has  talked  to  more  than  ten  or  fifteen  people  that  had 
mechanical  voting  devices. 

209  The  process  since  has  been  one  of  elimination  of  the 
companies.  "I  do  not  believe  A^oting  machines  are  prac- 
tical. I  do  not  believe  it  is  standing  still,  though.  I  do 
not  believe  that  the  last  machines  are  better,  mechanically 
or  in  theory,  than  the  older  machines,  than  the  Standard, 
or  the  Columbia."  The  witness  thinks  the  difference  be- 
tween the  United  States  Standard  and  the  Empire  is  a 
combination  of  the  parts  of  the  machine  of  the  old  three 
companies.  The  Empire  had  a  party  lever.  The  old 
United  States  Standard  had. 

210  The  Empire  had  one  key,  belonging  to  the  party  ticket. 
The  total  had  to  be  added  to  the  vote  on  the  same 
ticket,  showing  the  aggregate  vote  for  the  candidates. 

The  Avitness  examined  the  material  that  went  into  vot- 
ing machines.    The  Empire  and  Columbia  were  machine 


24  Testimony  of  John  D.  Camion. 

made.  The  Wilcox  was  in  part  hand  made.  Some  of  the 
machines  were  hand  made.  Such  machines  did  not  have  a 
full  set  of  tools  and  were  not  manufactured  to  the  same 
extent  as  those  of  the  old  companies. 

The  Election  Commissioners  found  that  voting 
machines  were  used  in  Bufifalo,  New  York  and  Milw^aukee. 
Witness  does  not  know  the  number. 

211  The  time  the  examination  w^as  made,  the  Election  Board 
found  that  there  was  not  any  increase  in  use  of  vot- 
ing machines,  and  that  in  New  Jersey  the  machines  had 
been  rejected  by  the  different  counties  and  voting  munici- 
palities. The  witness  examined  reports  of  the  machine 
companies  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  subject  of 
machines.  It  was  favorable.  They  were  all  rejected  im- 
mediately afterward  by  the  different  political  divisions 
in  the  state. 

212  The  witness  thinks  there  were  four  companies  with  a 
plant  and  tools  to  manufacture,  including  the  Interna- 
tional. The  International  had  a  printing  device  which  ran 
off  the  total  votes  cast  on  a  sheet  after  the  voting  day  was 
closed.  Witness  does  not  know  of  any  other  machine  that 
does  this.  In  all  the  rest  the  totals  have  to  be  read  by  .the 
judges  and  tabulated  on  the  tally-sheet. 

213  The  witness  does  not  think  that  voting  machines  are 
practical  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  City  of  Chicago,  or 
County  of  Cook.  No  machine  has  been  yet  invented  which 
will  meet  conditions  here.  There  is  no  other  state  that 
has  the  cumulative  voting  scheme.  There  are  not  so  many 
groups  of  candidates  in  the  other  states  as  here,  and  all 
of  those  conditions  mean  added  complications  under  me- 
chanical devices. 

214  In  group  voting  you  have  14  judges;  also  on  County 
Commissioners.  When  the  group  voting  principle  is  car- 
ried out  to  seven  feet  in  length,  it  is  difficult  as  a  me- 
chanical and  engineering  proposition. 

215  In  machines  examined  by  the  witness  the  metal  used 
was  phosphor  bronze,  steel  and  aluminum;  some  brass, 
but  very  little. 

"Q.  You  never  had  any  trouble  with  the  City  Council 
in  the  matter  of  getting  appropriations!  A.  No,  sir; 
the  last  time  we  went  there  for  an  appropriation  there  was 
some  question  because  of  the  City  being  in  financial  strin- 
gencies and  the  Finance  Committee  at  that  time  invited 
the  Election  Officials,  the  Election  Board,  to  come  before 


Former  Conferences  With  City  Regarding  Finances.    25 

them  when  they  wex-e  preparing  their  annual  budget.  We 
went  at  that  time.  Mr.  Snow,  who  was  then  chairman 
of  the  Finance  Committee,  as  I  remember  it,  was  present, 
and  we  were  questioned  about  the  matter.  The  combined 
voting  machine  companies  were  represented  at  that  time, 
I  think,  by  John  Maynard  Harlan.  The  question  was 
asked,  'Judge,  if  $100,000  worth  of  the  machines  would 
be  all  the  City  of  Chicago  would  need,  if  they  found, — 
if  the  Election  Board  found  an  acceptable  machine!'  I 
answered  for  the  Election  Board  that  |100,000  would  not 
buy  all  the  machines  that  might  be  needed  by  the  Board, 
but  they  did  not  purpose  at  that  time  to  buy  more  than 
$100,000  worth  of  machines  at  one  time ;  and  that  appro- 
I  priation  was  granted  at  that  time  on  my  statement  as  a 
member  of  the  Board  that  we  did  not  like  to  ask  the  City 
for  an  amount  beyond  $100,000  at  that  time." 

217  Civic  bodies  made  reports  on  voting  machines.  Some 
passed  on  them  favorably  and  others  were  against  them. 
Some  of  the  newspapers  of  Chicago  were  "crabbing"  the 
election  officials  now  and  then  on  the  subject  of  voting  ma- 
chines. Witness  does  not  think  any  civic  bodies  made  rec- 
ommendations one  way  or  the  other  to  the  Election  Com- 
missioners. In  their  investigations  they  discovered  some 
weaknesses  and  made  reports  to  the  Election  Commission- 
ers as  to  what  they  had  discovered.  Witness  thinks  he 
saw  one  such  report  from  the  Committee  on  Elections  of 
the  City  Club. 

218  The  Election  Commissioners  had  about  twenty  machines 
in  use  in  the  election  at  one  time.  This  was  either  be- 
fore or  after  the  tirst  demonstration.  Machines  exclu- 
sively were  used  in  precincts  where  they  were  placed. 
Ballots  were  kept  in  the  Election  Commissioners  office  for 
use  if  needed,  but  they  were  not  needed.  Witness  remem- 
bers that  machines  were  placed  in   the    27th    Ward,    in 

219  Ravenswood,  in  Hyde  Park  and  in  Englewood.  Thinks 
there  were  more  than  one  in  these  precincts,  but  does  not 
remember  there  were.  The  reports  were  made  to  the 
Election  Commissioners  of  votes  that  were  never  recorded 
on  the  machine.  There  were  three  machines  in  use,  the 
United  States  Standard,  the  Dean,  and  Winslow,  and  com- 
plaints were  made  against  all  three.  The  reports  were 
in  writing  and  witness  thinks  they  were  in  the  Election 
Commissioners'  office.  There  are  about  three  such  re- 
ports.   The  reports  were  in  the  safe  in  the  Rand-McNally 


26  Testimony  of  John  D.  Cannon. 

Building  and  were  indexed  under  the    title    "Machine 
Data,"  and  kept  in  a  separate  compartment  of  the  safe. 
221      Witness  would  be  willing,  with  the  aid  of  an  expert, 
to  study  the  mechanism  of  the  machine  now  present  in  the 
County  Commissioners'  room  and  "tell  how  to  beat  it." 

Judge  McEwen  states'  that  the  Election  Commission  in- 
vites the  -witness  to  select  his  expert,  study  the  machine 
for  any  reasonable  length  of  time  and  get  in  front  of  the 
machine  and  beat  it. 

"Judge  McEwEN.  The  Board  invites  you,  and  I,  on 
behalf  of  Judge  Owens,  invite  you  to  do  that." 

' 'The  Witness.     All  right. ' ' 

223  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Mitchell. 

While  there  was  a  Republican  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners, to  the  witness'  recollection  there  was  only  one 
paper  that  had  an  editorial  commenting  on  the  purchase 
of  voting  machines.  The  witness  does  not  recollect  that 
the  Chicago  Tribune  was  pertinacious  in  advocating  the 
purchase  of  voting  machines.  The  Chicago  Daily  News 
was  never  in  favor  of  voting  machines  until  a  suitable  and 
ample  machine  could  be  found. 

224  The  witness  does  not  remember  any  persistent  attempts 
for  the  purchase  of  machines,  either  on  the  part  of  Repub- 
lican or  Democratic  newspapers.  Does  not  know  that  any 
opposed  it.  Witness  recalls  editorial  in  Chicago  Record- 
Herald  ending,  "Why  any  more  wait!" 

225  In  the  last. examination,  it  was  shown  the  cut-off  with 
reference  to  women's  voting  could  be  defeated.    The  ex- 

226  perts  said  this.  Professor  Depuy  particularly,  and  alluded 
to  it  in  their  reports.  The  witness  does  not  know  of  any 

228  report  made  by  Professor  Depuy  on  the  Empire  Machine 
in  1910  in  which  he  did  not  allude  to  defect  in  cut-out  de- 
vice. 

229  The  defect  existed  in  the  last  Empire  Machine  pre- 
sented. "I  called  the  defect  to  the  attention  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  the  County 
Judge,  Harry  Barr,  and  Mr.  Lausterer,  the  superintend- 
ent. I  cannot  recall  whether  these  objections  were  incor- 
porated in  the  reports  of  the  experts. 

230  The  witness  did  not  visit  the  plants  of  any  of  the  ma- 
chines concerned  while  he  was  Election  Commissioner  to 
see  whether  or  not  they  had  adequate  plants.    The  witness 


Fraudulent  Manipulation  of  Empire  Machine.  27 

thought  that  the  three  companies  had  adequate  plants. 
The  United  States  Standard,  Dean,  and  International. 

231  The  witness  thinks  that  this  machine,  or  any  machine 
could  be  tampered  with  by  one  man  if  he  was  custodian. 
The  witness  has  set  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  so  that 
it  would  record  falsely.  Has  also  set  the  United  States 
Standard  Machine  so  it  would  record  falsely.    And  voted 

232  for  more  candidates  than  the  law  permitted.  Did  not  put 
out  that  particular  machine  on  election  day,  but  showed 
the  defect  to  the  manufacturers  who  rectified  it. 

"Q.  You  never  nut  out  any  machine  that  was  capable 
of  defective  work?  A.  I  never  wanted  to  put  out  a  ma- 
chine that  was  not  honestly  and  legally  capable  of  letting 
■      the  voter  cast  his  ballot. 

' '  Q.  Then  all  the  machines  you  put  out  were  capable  of 
that  result!  A.  Yes,  they  were.  We  believe  they  were 
legally  capable.    We  never  put  out  over  twenty,  though. ' ' 

233  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

To  the  witness'  recollection  only  one  examination  of 
machines  was  held  in  1910.  They  came  in  under  the  last 
clause  of  the  report, — People  who  had  voting  machines  or 
devices, — and  permitting  them  to  bring  them  in  at  any 
time. 

Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

While  the  process  of  elimination  of  voting  machines 
was  going  on,  and  other  machines  were  being  invented,  the 
witness  heard  of  at  least  four. 

234  Regarding  the  attitude  of  the  newspapers  during  the 
witness'  membership  on  the  Republican  Board,  the  wit- 
ness had  discussed  voting  machine  defects  with  publish- 
ers and  editors  of  newspapers.  Did  so  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  County  Judge  and  Election  Commissioners 
who  instructed  witness  to  call  on  all  Chicago  papers.  Wit- 
ness called  on  all. 

238  "I  called  on  Mr.  McCullough  of  the  Record-Herald,  and 
stated  to  him  that  the  County  Judge  and  Commission- 
ers wished  him,  for  his  own  information,  to  send  some 
expert  in  whom  he  had  implicit  faith  and  confidence,  to 
the  Election  Rooms  and  he  would  there  be  shown  a  vot- 
ing machine  and  its  defects  would  be  shown  to  him.    I 


28  Testimony  of  John  D.  Cannon. 

"  carried  that  same  request  to  the  Tribune  and  saw  Mr. 
Medill  McCormick  and  was  referred  by  Mr.  McCormick 
to  Mr.  Beck." 

239  The  Tribune  and  Record-Herald  were  Republican 
papers  at  that  time. 

The  witness  also  called  on  the  Inter  Ocean,  Examiner 
and  American.  Mr.  Hewitt  came  over  from  the  Record- 
Herald  and  Mr.  O'Dell  from  the  Tribune,  Mr.  Strauss 
from  the  Inter  Ocean,  and  Mr.  Dennis  from  the  Daily 
News.  All  of  these  men  saw  the  machine  in  the  presence 
of  the  County  Judge  and  the  Election  Board,  and  was 
shown  its  defects  as  determined  and  discovered  by  the 
demonstration  and  reports  of  the  experts,  and  from  that 

240  time  on  the  witness  believes  every  newspaper  was  satis- 
fied that  the  Board  was  endeavoring  in  every  way  to  get  a 
machine  that  was  suitable  for  the  needs  of  this  city  and 
this  county.  This  was  done  after  the  "Why  any  more 
waiting,  waiting,  waiting?"  editorial  in  the  Record- 
Herald. 

241  AVitness  was  with  Western  Electric  Company  nearly 
30  years.  They  now  employ  20,000  men,  women,  boys 
and  girls. 

"Q.  From  your  knowledge  of  tools,  as  revealed  here 
by  Judge  McEwen,  and  the  length  of  time  to  make  them, 
do  you  think  they  could  make  tools  sufficient  to  manufac- 
ture the  machines  in  25  days!  A.  The  Western  Electric 
Company  f 

"Q.  No,  any  company.  These  voting  machines!  A. 
Any  properly  equipped  company  could  made  tools;  of 
course,  if  there  was  a  great  many  of  them  25  days  would 
not  be  enough." 

"Q.  Sufficient  to  make  the  Empire  Voting  Machine! 
A.  I  think  putting  men  enough  on  them  they  could  make 
tools  enough  in  25  days. 

"Q.  A  large  organization  could!  A.  A  large  organ- 
ization with  men,  space,  and  machinery. ' ' 

242  As  the  witness  remembers  it,  the  New  Jersey  Voting 
Machine  Law  was  '  repealed  April  27,  1911.  Witness 
thinks  the  machines  had  been  used  in  over  100  New  Jer- 
sey cities.  Three  days  after  the  repealing  of  the  New 
Jersey  law  the  Election  Board  in  the  City  of  Chicago 
approved  the  specifications  and  set  25  days  for  filing  bids. 

The  repeal  of  the  New  Jersey  law  was  public  informa- 
tion to  those  keeping  in  touch  with,  voting  machine  situa- 
tion. 


Testimony  of  John  D.  Cannon.  29 

243  After  the  experimental  use  of  voting  machines  in  the 
elections  in  Chicago  they  were  rejected  by  the  Board. 

' '  Senator  Landee.  After  the  interview  you  had  with 
the  newspapers  here,  after  that  editorial  had  been  in  one 
of  the  papers,  did  the  paper  change  toward  the  voting 
machines  right  after,  or  did  they  wait  until  the  new  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  had  been  appointed? 

244  "A.  Well,  there  was  not  any  unfavorable  comment 
after  that  (after  my  visit  to  the  newspapers  and  their 
experts  coming  in  and  looking  it  over,  getting  the  real 
information). 

"Q.     Immediately    afterwards    and    before    the    new 
Board  was  appointed,  the  change  was  made  after  the  new 
,       Board,  but  after  your  interview]     A.     After  my  inter- 
view. ' ' 

245  There  was  no  editorial  appeared  manifesting  any 
change  in  the  attitude  of  the  newspaper  after  witness' 
interview.  They  just  stopped  talking;  did  not  say  any- 
thing more  about  it. 

246  "Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Before  I  go  into  the  matter,  Judge 
McEwen,  you  asked  a  question  and  said,  'Had  there  been 
any  adverse  comment  upon  the  contract  up  to  the  time 
the  contract  had  been  let?'  Do  you  want  that  question 
to  stand  at  that,  or  up  to  the  time  of  negotiations? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    I  will  let  it  stand  just  as  I  asked  it. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Very  well,  I  will  refresh  your  recollec- 
tion. I  read  from  the  Daily  News  editorial  of  June  24th, 
1911,  which  said:  'A  small  rubber  band,  or  a  small  spring, 
arranged  on  the  face  of  the  machine,  can  be  placed  upon 
the  keys  of  three  of  the  four  machines  submitted  in  such 
a  manner  that  voting  for  one  or  more  candidates  can  be 
interfered  with  unknown  to  the  voter.  Upon  three  of  the 
machines,  an  independent  voter  who  desires  to  write  in 
the  name  of  his  candidate  cannot  change  his  mind  after 
he  writes  the  name  of  his  candidate  on  the  paper  provided 
for  the  purpose.  Only  one  of  the  machines  has  a  device 
to  print  a  record  showing  the  condition  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine before  the  election  and  the  votes  registered  for  va- 
rious candidates  after  the  election.  A  printed  record,  in 
the  event  of  contest,  would  be  unquestioned  proof  as  to 
the  facts.' 

247  "Q.  Do  you  remember  any  such  statement?  A.  Yes, 
I  do. 

"Q.  The  contract  was  let  the  following  month  in  July? 
— No,  the  contract  was  voted  on  June  30th,  and  then  it 


30  Testimony  of  John  D.  Cannon. 

was  executed  later;  it  was  about  six  days  beforehand? 
A.    Yes. 

"Q.  Do  you  remember  on  June  30th  in  the  morning, 
before  the  contract  was  made,  that  the  Chicago  Examiner 
announced  1,000  voting  machines  would  be  purchased  at 
a  price  of  approximately  $1,000,000?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  Now,  as  to  the  question — on  July  1st,  from  the 
News :  '  Men  who  have  been  busy  in  gambling  and  slot 
machine  devices  have  shown  a  vital  interest  in  the  activity 
to  install  voting  machines  in  this  city,  and  a  former  race- 
track magnate  of  Chicago  and  two  race-track  men  of  Cali- 
fornia are  among  those  interested  in  the  Empire  Com- 
pany. While  some  friends  of  these  men  may  claim  that 
their  interest  is  caused  by  their  own  investments,  others 
declare  that  they  are  merely  proxies  for  certain  other 
Chicagoans  reported  to  be  interested  in  the  voting  de- 
vices. ' 

"Do  you  remember  a  charge  of  that  kind  being  made  in 
the  newspapers!  A.  Yes,  sir,  I  remember  seeing  it  in 
the  paper.    Yes,  sir." 

This  appeared  after  the  witness'  visit  to  the  news- 
papers. 
249  The  Daily  News  had  always  been  strong  for  voting 
machines.  Witness  does  not  know  whether  they  got  Wins- 
low  to  go  to  Chicago  with  a  view  of  promoting  the  voting 
machine  matter.  Mr.  Winslow  was  informed,  but  not  any 
more  than  any  other  representatives  of  machines.  Wit- 
ness does  not  know  that  Winslow  went  to  Springfield  dur- 
ing the  last  session  of  the  Legislature  or  that  somebody 
circulated  literature  at  Springfield  purporting  to  come 
from  Kansas. 

Witness  does  not  know  that  the  Record-Herald,  Daily 
News,  Journal  and  Tribune  opposed  the  purchase  of  vot- 
ing machines.  Witness  does  not  read  every  one  of  these 
papers. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  31 

VOLUME  IV. 

Afternoon  Session,  Wed.,  July  23,  1913. 

252  Howard  S.  Taylor: 

6356  Stewart  avenue.  A  lawyer,  and  has  official  posi- 
tion of  Election  Commissioner  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
and  Cicero.  Appointed  Election  Commissioner  Decem- 
ber 9,  1910,  and  has  served  continuously  since. 

252-3  Immediately  prior  to  his  becoming  Election  Commis- 
sioner, the  witness  was  writing  editorials  for  the  Chi- 
cago Examiner.     Has    not   engaged  in    that   occupation 

•  since.  Wrote  editorials  for  Examiner  for  about  two 
years.  The  Election  Commissioners  are  C.  H.  Keller- 
mann  and  Anthony  Czarnecki.  Czarnecki  represents  the 
Republicans.  William  H.  Stuart  was  appointed  Chief 
Clerk  after  witness  assumed  office.  All  have  served  con- 
tinuously since.  The  witness  thinks  that  about  the  mid- 
dle of  January,  1911,  the  Election  Commission  began  talk- 

254  ing  about  the  voting  machine  matter  seriously.  Thinks 
the  first  official  step  was  to  urge  the  secretary  to  com- 
municate with  all  voting  machine  manufacturers  whose 
names  could  be  obtained  from  the  records  in  the  office  or 
otherwise,  and  invite  them  to  a  competitive  examination. 

The  Election  Commissioners  had  a  good  deal  of  talk 
in  January.  The  recent  case  against  the  Election  Com- 
missioners brought  to  light  by  the  grand  jury  in  1908,  in 
which  they  recommended  that  voting  machines  should  be 
put  into  every  precinct  in  Chicago  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment.     Also  there  was  a  good  deal  of  talk  about  im- 

255  pending  frauds  at  the  spring  election.  That  also  was 
talked  over.  The  witness  talked  it  over  with  Judge  Owens 
as  to  what  precaution  should  be  taken,  and  it  was  agreed 
there  should  be  a  fraud  bureau  to  look  up  all  fraudulent 
attempts. 

"Q.  What  was  said  about  voting  machines  in  Janu- 
ary? A.  I  can't  recall  any  precise  meeting,  but  I  think 
that  it  was  generally  understood  between  Mr.  Kellermann 
and  myself,  and  Judge  Owens  and  Mr.  Stuart,  that  we 
ought,  if  possible,  to  install  voting  machines.  The  first 
conversation  occurred  about  the  middle  of  January,  1911. 
It  did  not  occur  at  a  meeting  of  the  Board,  but  was  an 
informal  talking  and  conferring." 


32  The  Voting  Machine  Specifications. 

Mr.  Kellermann  and  the  witness  talked  it  over  and  Mr. 
Czarnecki  perhaps  heard  some  of  the  talk,  though  witness 
is  not  sure  about  that. 

256  The  witness  cannot  say  whether  the  voting  machine 
matter  was  taken  up  with  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  either 
officially  or  casually.  It  is  merely  his  impression  that 
Commissioner  Czarnecki  must  have  heard  the  conversa- 
tion. These  conversations  were  not  in  official  meetings, 
but  in  the  office.  The  witness  cannot  say  whether  Com- 
missioner Kellermann  and  the  witness  discussed  the  vot- 
ing machine  matter  with  Commissioner  Czarnecki  during 

257  the  month  of  January.  The  witness  thinks  that  the 
Board  officially  ordered  the  Clerk  to  write  letters  of  in- 
vitation sometime  in  February;  it  might  have  been  that 
March  4th  was  the  first  time  that  anything  was  done. 
The  witness  has  a  copy  of  the  minutes  as  sent  to  Mr. 
Deneen  by  the  secretary  of  the  Board,  which  show  that 
the  first  time  the  matter  was  discussed  in  an  official  meet- 
ing was  March  4th,  1911. 

The  Avitness  cannot  be  positive,  but  thinks  that  it  di- 
rected the  Clerk  to  write  letters  before  that  and  that  on 
March  4th  he  reported  that  he  had. 

259  Specifications  to  submit  to  voting  machine  companies 
were  not  prepared  before  the  letters  were  sent.  The 
witness  thinks  that  probably  the  first  motion  regarding 
voting  machines,  during  the  term  of  the  present  Board, 
was  March  4th,  1911.  After  looking  at  the  minutes,  the 
witness  says  that  the  motion  of  March  4th  was  intended 
to  ascertain  whether  or  not  there  is  a  practical  and  effi- 

260  cient  voting  machine.  That  was  the  first  motion  relating 
to  voting  machines  and  was  made  by  the  witness.  Wit- 
ness cannot  say  whether  specifications  were  drawn  be- 
fore that  time.  Two  or  three  sets  were  drawn  and  rati- 
fied from  time  to  time.  Witness  does  not  know  that  the 
1908  report  of  the  grand  jury  was  ever  called  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  Board.  The  Board  had  been  talking  about 
it  a  good  many  times,  but  not  in  the  Board's  sessions. 

261  Does  not  know  that  the  grand  jury  report  was  called  to 
the  attention  of  Commissioner  Czarnecki  before  the  con- 
tract was  made.  Prior  to  March  4,  1911,  the  witness  had 
been  one  of  the  early  voting  machine  men,  made  speeches 
and  aided  the  enterprise  all  he  could  in  1903 ;  might  have 
been  when  the  matter  was  submitted  to  the  people,  1904. 

The  witness  is  not  a  machinist,  but  had  a  little  knowl- 
edge of  voting  machine  mechanism.    While  prosecuting 


Experimental  Use  of  Voting  Machines.  33 

attorney  in  1904  and  1905  the  witness  went  to  Milwaukee 
and  talked  with  officials  there  about  voting  machines 
which  they  had  installed. 

262  The  custodian,  or  someone,  showed  witness  a  voting 
machine  in  the  Milwaukee  City  Hall.  Witness  took  merely 
a  superficial  look  and  perhaps  witness  operated  the  lever. 
Does  not  remember  about  that.  The  machine  the  witness 
saw  in  Milwaukee  was  the  United  States  Standard,  the 
one  that  was  purchased  later  by  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company. 

Witness  cannot  say  that  he  had  examined  the  minutes 
of  the  preceding  Board  relating  to  voting  machines  pre- 

263  vious  to  March  4th ;  but  sometime  early  in  the  spring  the 
witness  went  over  the  report  of  old  examinations  and 

•  looked  into  the  minute-book.  Witness  does  not  remem- 
ber what  information  he  got  and  cannot  say  whether  it 
was  before  March  4th  or  not. 

March  24th,  16  machines  were  sent  out,  16  machines 
for  experimental  use.  Witness  thinks  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  made  a  motion  that  20  machines  be  sent  out. 

Witness  remembers  a  man  named  Farrell  who  repre- 
sented the  Triumph  Voting  Machine  Company.    Witness 

264  does  not  recall  that  Farrell  objected  to  notice  sent  out 
to  the  machine  companies  on  the  ground  that  the  notice 
was  too  short.  Farrell  might  have  done  so,  but  it  would 
be  better  proven  by  the  minutes. 

Witness  thinks  he  then  made  a  motion  to  limit  it  to 
16  machines.  Remembers  that  when  making  the  motion 
he  stated  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  and  experimenting 
with  machines  was  to  agitate  the  matter  in  the  public 
mind  and  call  it  to  the  attention  of  civic  bodies. 

265  About  April  24th  a  final  set  of  specifications  was  pre- 
pared and  adopted  by  the  Board.  Witness  cannot  recall 
whether  the  Board  had  instructed  Mr.  Mitchell  or  Mr. 
Stuart  to  prepare  specifications  prior  to  April  4,  1911. 
The  minutes  do  not  show  that  the  Board  had  ordered  this 
done,  but  witness  does  not  think  that  conclusive. 

267  Witness  thinks  that  at  the  time  of  the  meeting  on 
March  4th  in  which  voting  machines  had  been  discussed, 
"we  had  a  pretty  fair  notion,  some  of  us,  that  we  wanted 
to  buy  some  machines  and  install  them. ' '  It  was  the  wit- 
ness' view  that  Election  Commissioners  were  entering 
a  period  of  inquiry  and  examination  with  a  view  of  pur- 
chasing voting  machines.    The  witness  had  talked  before 


34  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

268  that  with  Judge  Owens,  with  Mr.  Kellermann  and  with 
Mr.  Stuart,  and  he  thinks  with  Mr.  Czarnecki.  The  wit- 
ness cannot  be  positive  that  he  discussed  or  referred  to 
the  matter  of  voting  machines  in  the  presence  of  Com- 
missioner Czarnecki  at  any  time  before  April,  1911.  Wit- 
ness aided  in  the  preparation  of  specifications  only  to 
the  extent  that  items  were  discussed  and  amended  sev- 
eral times  back  and  forth  by  Kellermann,  Stuart,  Mitchell, 
and,  he  thinks,  "although  I  am  not  certain,"  Mr.  Czar- 
necki. Witness  cannot  say  that  the  matter  was  discussed, 
either  officially  or  informally,  with  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki before  April  24th,  1911. 

269  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Mr.  Stuart  prepared  specifications, 
from  old  specifications,  by  adding  and  subtracting  a 
little  to  meet  the  new  situation.  Witness  cannot  recall 
when  Mr.  Mitchell  was  directed  to  prepare  specifications, 
but  thinks  that  they  fitted  them  up  immediately  after  the 
April  election. 

The  witness  had  not,  prior  to,  or  on  April  24th,  1911, 
discussed  purchasing  voting  machines  with  any  member 
of  the  Finance  Committee  or  the  City  Council. 

271  On  or  before  April  24th,  1911,  and  since  the  witness 
became  Commissioner,  he  has  talked  at  the  Election  Com- 
missioners '  office  with  some  of  the  voting  machine  agents. 
About  the  middle  of  March,  in  the  Rand  McNally  Build- 
ing, three  machines  were  installed  that  were  afterwards 
in  competition,  the  Empire,  the  Wlnslow,  and  the  Tri- 
umph, and  witness  talked  with  a  number  of  the  agents 

272  of  those  machines.  The  machines  used  in  the  election  of 
April  4th  were  United  States  Standard.  They  were 
owned  by  the  Empire  Company,  and  witness'  recollection 
is  that  the  Empire  Company  exhibited  these  Standard 
machines  rather  than  their  own.    Before  April  24th  wit- 

■    ness  thinks  he  had  not  examined  an  Empire  machine, 
though  not  sure. 

273  Witness  thinks  he  had  examined  reports  of  the  experts 
made  to  the  old  Board,  either  before  or  after  April  24th. 
Thinks  the  reports  rated  the  Winslow  machine  low  and 
experts  regarded  it  as  a  crude  machine.  On  the  Triumph 
machine  the  report  was  something  more  favorable ;  can- 
not recall  the  details.  The  reports  regarded  the  Stand- 
ard as  the  best  machine.  On  one  occasion  Mr.  Olson,  one 
of  the  experts,  in  answer  to  the  question  whether  the  ma- 
chines had  been  sufficiently  developed  so  as  to  warrant 


Commissioner  Czarnecki  Asks  for  Time.  35 

the  Board  in  purchasing,  he  replied,  "Yes,  considered 
from  a  mechanical  standpoint  only." 

274  After  reading  page  16  of  the  minutes,  witness  says  it 
is  probable  Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  for  delay  to 
give  the  Commission  time  to  examine  and  consider  the 
specifications.  After  reading  the  minutes,  witness  says 
apparently  he  (witness)  moved,  on  April  24th,  that  the 
question  of  advertising  for  bids  be  taken  up  without  de- 

275  lay.  Witness  says  that  from  the  minutes  he  must  say 
that  Clerk  Stuart  said  the  matter  should  not  be  permit- 
ted to  drag  along  any  longer.  Witness  explains  in  re- 
gard to  minutes,  and  says:  "The  explanation  is  this, 
that  the  minutes  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Board,  Mr.  'Czarnecki,  they  were  typewritten  out  and 
taken  by  him  and  put  away,  and  I  tried  faithfully  for 
about  a  year  and  a  half  to  get  hold  of  them  and  for  one 
reason  or  another  Mr.  Kellermann  tried  and  protested 
against  it,  the  minutes  ought  to  be  brought  out  and  read 
and  adopted ;  we  could  not  get  the  minutes  out,  however, 
and  written  into  the  budget  until  a  little  while  before  this 
committee  was  appointed.  I  made  such  a  protest  and  Mr. 
Kellermann  made  such  a  protest  about  having  a  lot  of 
loose  sheets,  that  we  at  last  got  them  out  and  got  them 
written  up.  Now,  I  do  not  say  whether  they  are  correct 
or  not,  except  on  some  of  the  big,  major  features  that  I 
have  an  independent  recollection  of." 

276  Reading  minutes  handed  him  does  not  revive  the  wit- 
ness' recollection  sufficiently  to  state  whether  or  not  he 
made  the  motion  to  adopt  without  delay.  The  minutes 
were  not  approved  by  the  Board  at  the  time,  and  wit- 
ness does  not  know  that  they  ever  have  been  since. 

Memoranda  for  the  minutes  were  sometimes  handed 
the  witness  the  same  day  as  the  meetings  occurred,  but 
not  regularly;  a  great  many  times  the  witness  did  not 

277  see  them.  Could  not  recite  any  such  occasion  between 
April  11th  and  July  22nd.  Witness  would  not  say  they 
were  not  handed  to  him. 

Examination  of  witness  continued  by  Commissioner 
Czarnecki : — 

278  The  witness  cannot  remember  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki's  insisting  that  the  minutes  should  recite  anything 
and  everything  that  took  place  at  the  meetings  of  the 
Board,  but  remembers  the  controversy  over  that  ques- 
tion.   The  witness  was  in  favor  of  condensing  the  min- 


36  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor.  .  • 

utes  and  reading  them  before  the  next  meeting  and  pass- 
ing upon  them  while  they  were  fresh  in  mind. 
278-282    Questions  are  asked  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  as 
to  method  of  keeping  the  minutes.    The  substance  of  the 
examination  may  be  summed  up  as  follows : — 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  was  Secretary  of  the  Board 
and  contended  that  all  matters  occurring  before  the 
Board  should  be  set  forth  in  the  minutes  of  the  Board  in 
detail.  Doctor  Taylor  insisted  that  they  should  be  con- 
densed, and  himself  undertook  to  edit  them.  The  min- 
utes, as  they  appear  in  the  record  used  in  this  investi- 
gation, are  the  edited  minutes.  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
produced  a  large  book  in  which  were  pasted  shorthand 
transcripts  and  other  matter  purporting  to  be  full  rec- 
ord of  what  occurred  at  certain  of  the  meetings  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners. 

282  The  witness  states  that  Mrs.  Clinton,  a  stenographer 
in  the  Election  Commissioners'  office,  according  to  the 
Avitness,  worked  night  after  night  upon  the  minutes  un- 
der the  direction  of  Mr.  Czarnecki. 

Mrs.  Clinton  told  him  that  she  was  required  to  make 
alterations  in  the  minutes  and  did  not  think  it  was  right. 

283  ' '  Commissioner  Czarnecki.  Q.  Very  well,  is  this  your 
handwriting.  Doctor  Taylor? 

"A.    Yes,  sir,  that  is  my  handwriting. 

"Q.     That  correction,  'January  17'? 

"Mr.  Denebk.    1911? 

"Commissioner  Czahnecki.    Yes. 

"The  Witness.     That  was    made,  to  the  best  of    my 

284  recollection,  recently, — comparatively  recently, — for  the 
purpose  of  editing  this  sheet,  as  it  would  appear  in  the 
book. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Pardon  me,  when  was  it  made, — 
when  you  say  'compared'? 

"A.  Well,  we  got  the  minutes  out,  at  last,  this  spring, 
along  in,— Oh,  just  a  little  time  after  the  appointment." 

"The  Chairman.  Q.  Do  you  identify  the  book  there 
as  being  the  book  containing  the  minutes  of  your  Board 
meeting? 

"A.    I  think  not,  we  never  paid  any  attention  to  it.' 
*    #    * 

"The  Witness.    I  said  that  those  minutes  I  edited  up, 
all  those  things  were  done  along  probably  April. 
"Mr.  Deneen.     April. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  37 


if 


'A.    But  they  were  the  minutes  of  1911." 
'Mr.  Dbneen.    You  were  careful  to  correct  the  Eng- 
lish? 

"A.    Yes,  as  well  as  I  could. 

"Q.    Did  you  correct  the  facts,  too?    A.    No,  sir. 

"Q.  You  let  all  the  facts  stand?  A.  There  is  not  a 
thing  in  there,  Governor,  that  I  put  my  assent  to  that  is 
not  straight,  except  this.  I  did  not  know,  and  I  do  not 
know  now,  whether  the  minutes  were  correct  or  not.  I 
have  a  very  strong  impression  that  they  were  not  cor- 
rect. 

"The  Chaibman.    You  approved  the  minutes  for  the 
Board,  did  you  not.  Dr.  Taylor? 
I«  "A.     I  said  to  Mr.  Kellermann,  talking    the    matter 

over  quietly, — he  was  very  dissatisfied  about  it, — 

"The  Chaibman.  I  asked  if  you  approved  the  minutes 
for  the  Board,  finally? 

"A.    I  think  not. 

"Q.    These  minutes  contain  an  approval.    A.    The  ad- 
dition at  the  head  of  each  meeting,  to  the  minutes,  read 
and  approved,  that  was  written  in  there  ^pro  forma.'  " 
308      "Commissioner  Czarnecki.     Q.     At  whose    direction, 
Dr.  Taylor? 

"A.  Well,  possibly  by  mine  and  Mr.  Kellermann 's. 
I  think  so, — in  pursuance  of  the  idea  that  these  minutes 
are  to  be  brought  out  and  presented  to  the  Board  and 
read  aloud  and  approved  by  the  Board. 

"Senator  Barb.  Whv  didn't  you  say  that  everv  meet- 
ing? 

"A.    I  could  not  get  ahold  of  them. 

"Q.    Who  had  ahold  of  them?    A.    Mr.  Czarnecki. 

"Q.  Was  he  the  secretary  of  the  Board?  A.  He  was 
secretary  of  the  Board. 

"Senator  Laj^dee.  Q.  Didn't  your  minutes — weren't 
your  minutes  read  at  every  single  meeting,  and  ap- 
proved? 

"A.     No,  sir. 

"Q.  No  minutes  were  read  and  approved  at  the  fol 
lowing  meeting?     A.    No,  sir. 

"Representative  Gabesche.  Q.  Then,  as  a  commis- 
sion, you  had  not  approved  the  minutes  at  all? 

"A.  I  don't  know  that  we  have  that  formal  approval. 
My  understanding,  and  my  desire,  was,  that  we  should 
have  at  each  meeting  the  minutes  of  the  previous  meet- 


38  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

ing  brought  out  and  read  and  approved,  and  then  signed 
by  the  Chairman  and  Secretary,    but,  as  I  say  to  you, 

289  there  was  a  long  period  there,  a  very  long  period,  when 
we  couldn't  get  hold  of  the  minutes,  simply  couldn't  do 
it.     We  had  controversies  sometimes  heated." 

290  "Commissioner  Czarnbcki.  Q.  Didn't  you  do  the 
editing,  Doctor,  of  what  finally  went  in! 

"A.  No,  sir;  my  proposition,  Mr.  Czarneeki,  was  that 
the  minutes  should  be  edited  down  properly  so  as  to  cut 
out  your  stump  speeches  against  the  voting  machines." 

291  Witness  does  not  believe  that  the  minutes  of  April 
24th,  showing  that  Mr.  Czarneeki  asked  for  a  delay  of 
one  day  to  examine  the  specifications,  are  correct.  Can- 
not say    that    iCommissioner    Czarneeki    made  a  stump 

.     speech,  or  any  kind  of  speech  at  the  meeting  of  April 
24th. 

292  The  witness  identifies,  in  initial,  notes  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Board  as  a  direction  to  Miss  Johnson,  "Condense 
this,  Howard  S.  Taylor,"  under  date  of  March  2nd,  1911. 

(The  book  is  marked  "Exhibit  A-2.") 
"The  Chairman.    I  would  like  to  have  it  entered  as  an 
exhibit. 

296  "Commissioner  Czarnecki.  Q.  Here  is  some  con- 
densing; did  you  direct  this  condensing.  Dr.  Tavlor,  on 
March  4th? 

"A.  Yes,  apparently.  That  is  my  signature  up  there, 
or  my  direction. 

"Commissioner  Czarnecki.  Was  that  condensed  for 
the  purpose  of  eliminating  the  noting  of  the  payments  of 
the  regular  men  and  the  noting  of  the  exception  marked 
by  myself  with  reference  to  the  payment  of  extra  time  to 
regular  men  for  work,  Messrs.  Shapp  and  Stevens,  and 
other  reasons  of  that  kind?  Did  I  not  insist  that  all  of 
them  should  go  always,  whether  it  was  in  dialogue  form 
or  not?    That  is  where  you  and  I  differed,  was  it  not? 

"A.  Apparently  there  was  a  striking  out  of  a  discus- 
sion in  regard  to  whether  a  man  who  works  overtime 
should  be  paid  for  it  or  not.  Czarnecki,  as  the  minutes 
show,  was  opposed  to  pajdng  the  men  for  overtime,  and 
I  do  not  recall  what  was  my  view  at  the  time,  but  I 
thought  that  it  was — " 

297  The  witness  0.  K.  'd  the  minutes  of  March  4th,  1911. 

298  Commissioner  Czarnecki  asked  the  Committee  to  send 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  39 

the  Sargeant-at-Arms  to  get  Miss  Elizabeth  Johnson,  an 
employe  of  the  Election  Commissioner's  office. 

299  "Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Do  the  minutes  accurately  state  the 
facts? 

"A.    No." 

300  "Mr.  Dbneen.     Q.     They  were  approved,  were  they 
not? 

"A.  I  cannot  say  whether  they  were  or  not. 
"Q.  You  said  awhile  ago  they  were.  A.  There  were 
times  when  we  approved  them;  I  was  going  to  say  that 
Mr.  Kellermann  and  myself,  talking  about  the  minutes 
long  afterwards,  agreed  that  probably  the  substantial 
facts  were  in  there,  what  we  called  the  biblical  meaning, 

•       but  that  it  would  be  better  to  let  it  alone  and  not  make 
any  fuss  about  it." 

304      The  witness  O.  K.  'd  the  facts  of  the  minutes  of  March 
4th. 

307  "Commissioner  Czarnecki.     Q.     Did  you  0.  K.  those 
minutes.  Doctor? 

"Senator  Landeb.  Q.  At  the  time  you  0.  K.'d  those 
minutes,  didn't  you  take  it  for  granted  that  they  were 
right,  or  else  you  wouldn't  have  0.  K.'d  them,  wouldn't 
you? 

A.  Well,  I  have  been  explaining  to  you,  I  regarded 
them  as  the  substantial  things,  on  the  whole,  correct; 
but  some  particulars  pushed  by  Mr.  Governor  Deneen's 
question  as  to  correct  or  not  correct,  I  had  to  give  the  rea- 
son." 

"Senator  Landee.  Has  Mr.  Czarnecki  been  your  sec- 
retary ever  since  the  Board  was  organized? 

"A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  That  is  something  over  two  years,  about  three 
years?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  And  the  majority  of  the  Board  kept  him,  a  man. 
as  secretary,  that  would  not  do  the  biddings  of  the  Board 
and  report  to  them?  A.  Well,  he  would  not  refuse  abso- 
lutely to—" 

308  He  was  the  minority  man.     There  might  have  been  a 
way  of  dismissing  him. 

"Mr.  Czarnecki.  (Reading  the  first  page  of  the  min- 
utes of  March  24,  1911) :  0.  K.  with  corrections.  How-, 
ard  S.  Taylor." 

This  is  the  witness'  notation. 


40  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 

311  Minutes  of  the  meeting  of  March  25th  called  to  the 
witness'  attention. 

313  "I  think  I  marked  those.  Those  condensations  are 
mine. ' ' 

The  meeting  of  March  27,  1911.  The  witness  identi- 
ties the  direction,  "After  hearing  much  evidence,"  and 
so  forth,  as  in  his  handwriting. 

Wherever  there  is  any  editing  done,  or  direction  "0. 
K.  with  corrections  indicated,"  the  direction  was  always 
given  to  the  stenographer. 

314  The  witness  does  not  remember  that  Commissioner 
Czarnecki,  at  the  meeting  of  March  31st,  1911,  moved  that 
each  machine  used  for  experimental  purposes  should  have 
a  certificate  from  the  State  Commission  before  it  was 
used. 

Witness  was  at  the  meeting  of  the  Board  when  the 
specifications  were  submitted  and  discussed  about  April 
24th. 

315  The  witness  has  not  any  independent  recollection 
whether  Commissioner  Czarnecki  made  a  motion  for  de- 
lay to  examine  and  consider  specifications,  and  after  hear- 
ing the  minutes  cannot  say  whether  they  are  correct  or 
not.  Will  not  say  that  it  did  not  occur.  Witness  thinks  that 
a  printed  copy  of  the  specifications  dated  April  27th, 
presented  to  him  is  a  correct  copy. 

Witness  is  not  sure  whether  the  specifications  have 
been  discussed  with  Commissioner  Czarnecki  prior  to 
their  presentation  to  the  Board,  April  24th.  Thinks 
that  he  was  present  on  one  or  two  occasions,  but  is  not 
sure.  Does  not  know  that  it  was  at  an  oflBcial  meeting. 
It  was  in  the  Board  rooms. 

316  Mr.  Czarnecki  signed  specifications,  it  is  said,  under 
protest,  but — 

"The  Witness.     The  protest  is  not  here. 

"Mr.  Deneen.     That  appears  later  in  the  minutes. 

The  protest  was  not  entered  into  the  minutes  until  long 
after  the  minutes  were  adopted. 

The  specifications  called  for  1,400  machines.  The  wit- 
ness knew,  in  a  general  way,  the  price  other  cities  were 

317  paying  for  machines.  Does  not  know  he  knew  the  price 
likely  to  be  charged  for  these  machines.  Witness  did  not 
confer  with  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  City  Council 
about  the  indebtedness  to  be  incurred.  Does  not  think 
there  was  any  conference  had  with  the  Finance  Commit- 
tee, but  not  sure  about  it. 


Short  Time  Allowed  for  Bids.  41 

318  The  witness  did  not  discuss  the  matter  of  purchas- 
ing machines  with  any  member  of  the  Public  Efficiency 
Bureau. 

The  contract  did  not  conform  to  the  requirements  of 
the  specifications  as  to  the  kind  and  number  of  machines 
to  be  delivered. 

The  Commissioners  did  not  discuss  with  any  of  the 
machine  companies  before  the  specifications  were  writ- 
ten them,  their  ability  to  manufacture  500  machines  in 
9  months.  Certified  checks  for  5  per  cent,  of  the  bid 
were  asked  for  in  the  specifications.  The  per  cent,  was 
fixed  according  to  a  sort  of  prevailing  standard.  The 
City  of  Chicago  requires  from  2  to  5  per  cent.  The 
County  Board  sometimes  as  high  as  10  per  cent. 

819  The  date  of  opening  bids  was  fixed  for  May  22nd  fol- 
lowing; the  reason  for  fixing  the  time  limit  at  25  days, 
witness  thinks,  was  that  all  machines  likely  to  compete 
were  on  the  ground.  Invitations  were  sent  to  other  ma- 
chines, but  in  the  previous  examination  by  experts  in 
1907  they  had  these  machines,  three  of  which  belonged  to 
the  Empire  'Company.  The  witness  thinks  it  was  com- 
monly known  that  there  were  about  four  machines  in 

320  the  country  all  told,  that  really  were  capable  of  competing. 

321  There  were  only  two  voting  machines  that  had  any 
plant  aside  from  the  Empire. 

"Q.  So  you  expected  that  at  that  time,  that  those 
would  be  the  only  two  that  would  make  any  bids  when 
you  fixed  the  time  at  25  days?    A.    No. 

"Q.  What  did  you  expect?  A.  There  was  a  possi- 
bility, for  instance,  that  the  Winslow,  or  International 
might  very  rapidly  develop  a  great  capacity" — 

322  In  the  experimental  use  of  voting  machines,  April  4th, 
there  was  no  Empire  machine  used.  The  ones  used  were 
the  U.  S.  Standard.  The  U.  S,  Standard  is  almost 
part  for  part  the  Empire. 

323  A  prospective  bidder  would  have  to  understand  the 
Illinois  Election  Laws,  the  Illinois  Primary  Law,  the 
Illinois  Ballot  Law,  the  cumulative  voting  system,  with 
the  grouping  for  judges  of  the  Circuit  Court  and  of  the 
Municipal  Court,  the  Sanitary  District  and  the  County 

324  Commissioners,  and  with  the  system  regarding  women's 
voting  in  this  state.  Also  with  regard  to  public  ques- 
tions. The  company  would  have  to  deposit  a  certified 
check  for  $50,000  and  arrange  for  $250,000  'bonds. 

'A.     Yes,  that  is,  he  would  not  have  to  do  all  of  this. 


<( 


42  Testimony  of  Hovmrd  8.  Taylor. 

"Q.  If  he  met  your  specifications  lie  would  have  to  do 
them,  wouldn't  he!  A.  Yes,  he  would  have  to  do  it 
within  the  time. 

"Q.  Twenty-five  days?  A.  Oh,  no,  no.  He  could 
make  his  bid  the  date  of  the  contract ;  the  date  of  the  first 
installment  might  be  far  off  in  the  future.  In  the  mean- 
time, I  think  the  salesman  would  be  under  those  cir- 
cumstances, perfectly  safe  to  jump  on  the  cars  and  come 
to  Chicago  with  his  machine,  learn  all  about  these  par- 
ticulars as  to  the  election  laws  in  24  hours. 

' '  Q.  And  then  take  his  machine  back  and  fix  it  to  com- 
ply with  the  laws  ?  A.  Oh,  no ;  they  would  know  and  he 
would  know.  • 

"Q.     Well?    A.    They  had  been  here." 

325  "The  Witness.  All  of  these  machines  that  I  spoke 
of  before, — and  for  the  matter  of  that,  almost  all  possible 
machines,  the  American,  the  Calkins,  all  of  them  that  had 
men  here  under  the  specifications,  almost  exactly  parallel 
to  the  rules  issued  by  the  old  Board, — knew  all  the  par- 
ticulars about  the  Illinois  law  and  whether  they  could  ap- 
proach the  specifications  or  not." 

The  Election  Commissioner  could  not  tell  in  advance 
who  would  bid,  but  owing  to  the  process  of  elimination, 
would  be  reasonably  sure  of  just  about  what  the  machine 
was. 

326  The  witness'  attention  is  called  to  Section  5  of  the 
Ballot  Voting  Machine  Law,  providing  that  bidders  shall 
be  furnished  with  a  certificate  of  indebtedness  or  bond 
in  payment  for  machines.  The  witness  thinks  in  view 
of  this  that  12  hours  would  be  sufficient  time  for  bidders 
to  submit  these  propositions  to  the  bond  companies  and 
lawyers  and  get  their  conclusions. 

Bidders  had  been  requested  in  the  specifications  to 
outline  a  scheme  of  financing  the  voting  machine  purchase 
project.  Witness  says  this  was  put  in  the  specifica- 
tions in  view  of  the  fact  a  great  many  states  that  had 
bought  machines  bought  them  on  time  and  paid  for  them 
out  of  the  savings,  and  it  is  a  question  whether  the  vot- 

327  ing  machine  companies  would  grant  unlimited  time  for 
pajTuent.  The  provision  in  the  specifications  regarding 
financing  was  simply  equivalent  to  asking  the  companies 
what  will  be  done  on  the  money  end. 

328  The  witness  is  asked  whether  companies  without  plants 
would  have  to  arrange  for  plants  and  equipment  and 
for  the  manufacturing  of  500  machines  to  be  delivered  in 


Commissioner  Czarnecki  Asks  Time  Extension.  43 

nine  months  and  answers:      "Possibly,  I  don't  know." 

It  is  customary  for  such  companies  to  get  a  bank  to 
arrange  to  finance  them  so  that  they  may  carry  out  the 
contract.  They  would  also  have  to  arrange  for  creating 
an  organization  of  careful  men  to  manufacture  the  ma- 
chine. 
329  "Q.  You  lunited  them  to  25  days?  A.  They  could 
meet  the  invitation  to  come  here  and  present  their  ma- 
chines and  wait  for  a  contract.  The  contract  might  be 
adopted  a  month  after,  or  six  months  after,  and  it 
might  provide  for  whatever  circumstances  were  required. 

"Q.  Did  your  Board  or  you  anticipate  that  the  men 
would  'bid,  submit  bids,  for  a  certain  price  for  a  machine 
and  then  take  his  time  afterwards  to  discover  whether 
"S30  he  had  made  a  mistake  or  not,  write  out  a  check  for 
$56,000  or  something  like  that?  A.  Well,  that  is  a  con- 
jecture I  don't  know  anything  about. 
331  This  matter  was  called  to  the  witness'  attention  by 
Mr.  Czarnecki,  who  moved  that  the  time  be  fixed  at  90 
instead  of  25  days. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Mr.  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no 
second,  that  was  for  ninety  days,  Mr.  Czarnecki,  Commis- 
sioner Czarnecki,  moved  the  adoption  of  the  provision  to 
fix  time  for  filing  the  bids  at  three  months  instead  of  25 
days,  declaring  that  25  days  was  not  sufficient,  that  it 
might  create  criticism,  that  the  Board  had  not  given  suf- 
ficient publicity  to  the  matter  and  conjecture  which  might 
arise  from  such  criticism.  Commissioner  Taylor  said 
that  25  days  was  sufficient  time  and  that  the  question 
of  praise  or  criticism  is  not  involved  in  seeking  to  give 
Chicago  a  reform  in  election  conditions.  Commissioner 
Keilermann  said  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  County 
Judge  that  25  days  would  be  sufficient  'because  of  the 
foi-mer  publicity,  and  agitation  of  the  problem." 

Commissioner  Keilermann  had  stated  that  it  was  the 
opinion  of  County  Judge  that  25  days  would  be  suffi- 
cient time  because  of  the  former  publicity  and  agitation 
of  the  problem.  The  witness  knew  that  the  companies 
had  failed  to  meet  the  requirements  and  specifications 
made  by  the  old  Board. 

The  specifications  were  dated  April  27th  and  were  is- 
sued the  next  day.  25  days'  time  was  given 
and  Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  for  three  months' 
time.      There  was  no  second  to  his  motion. 

The  witness  does  not  recall  that  Commissioner  Czar- 


44  Protest,  of  Hoosier  Voting  Machine  Company. 

necki  moved  for  time  to  have  an  opportimity  to  exam- 

335  ine  the  proof  sheets  of  the  specitications,  and  asked  for  a 
delay  of  one  day  for  that  purpose. 

Chief  Clerk  Stuart  then  asked  for  authority  to  proceed 
with  the  advertisements  for  sealed  bids  to  furnish  voting 
machines,  such  advertisements  to  continue  in  the  Chi- 
cago daily  newspapers  beginning    Friday,    April    28th, 

336  "Q.  (page  38):  Let  me  see  if  I  am  mistaken  about 
that:  'Commissioner  Czarnecki  asked  for  time  to  see 
the  printed  proofs  of  the  specifications  and  asked  for 
delaying  the  advertisements. 

"  '  Commissioner  Taylor  moved  that  the  authority  asked 
'by  the  Chief  Clerk  be  granted  and  that  the  Board  direct 
the  advertising  for  proposals  at  once  and  without  de- 
law.'  " 

337  ' '  Q.  Without  waiting  for  the  printed  proof  sheets  ?  A. 
Yes." 

"Middlebury,  Ind.,  May  11,  1911. 
Mr.  Anthony  Czarnecki, 

Chicago,  III. 
My  Dear  Sir  : — 

"We  received  registered  specifications  for  bids  on  1,200 
voting  machines  to  be  furnished  Chicago,  25  days  limit — 
Whew!  These  are  not  window  frames;  The  require- 
ments are  too  big  and  fast  for  a  small  concern  like  owr- 
selves,  altho  we  have  the  goods. 

"It  reads  as  though  it  was  made  to  fit  one  certain 
corporation  U.  S.  S.  So  do  the  V.  Machine  Laws  of  the 
various  States.  It  would  be  foolish  "for  the  City  of 
Chicago  to  load  up  with  V.  Machines  at  the  present  time. 
Within  a  few  years  they  will  be  able  to  buy  machines, 
that  are  as  far  ahead  of  the  big,  heavy,  cumbersome  ma- 
chines of  to-day  as  they  "are"  ahead  of  the  paper  ballot. 
There  are  several  machines  to  be  heard  from  soon.  I 
notice  by  the  paper  the  several  stands  you  have  taken 
in  this  matter  and  wish  to  say  that  you  are  on  the  right 
track.  Standard  tactics  seem  to  be  the  rage  all  over 
the  country.  Whether  it  is  the  Standard  Voting  Ma- 
chine. If  I  can  find  out  when  the  machines  are  open  to 
inspection  I  will  come  to  Chicago. 

"Respectfully, 

"Arthur  L.  Griffin, 
"HoosierV.  M.  Co." 


Protest  of  American  Voting  Machine  Compcmy.        45 

338      "Q.    Did  you  receive  this  letter!    A.    I  recall  that  was 
read  out. 

"Q.  And  you  made  a  motion  to  file  it,  did  you  not? 
A.     I  think  so;  yes,  sir. 

"Q.  You  gave  it  no  consideration  at  all,  did  you?  A. 
No. 

"Q.    None!    A.    No." 
"The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 

of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
Gentlemen  : 

"The  American  Voting  Machine  Company,  Inc.,  of  Bos- 
ton, Mass.,  having  recently  started  their  factory  at  Bos- 
ton, for  the  manufacture  of  voting  machines,  are  desirous 
to  compete  for  the  contract  of  furnishing  your  City  with 
the  required  1200  voting  machines. 

' '  In  view  of  the  fact  that  your  proposal  did  not  reach 
our  company  until  the  10th  inst.,  and  owing  to  the  limited 
time  of  only  12  days,  in  which  to  submit  a  sample  which 
meets  all  the  requirements  of  your  City,  and  the  approval 
of  the  Illinois  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Examiners,  this 
Company  respectfully  petitions  your  Honorable  Board  to 
extend  the  time  limit  for  submitting  our  machine  together 
with  our  bid  for  your  consideration,  to  June  30th,  1911. 

"The  American  Voting  Machine  Company  contains 
many  desirable  features  not  found  in  any  other  machines 
and  does  not  call  on  the  voter  for  any  ingenuity  or  judg- 
ment bevond  that  involved  in  the  simple  casting  of  his 
ballot. 

"The  American  Voting  Machine  has  been  examined 
and  approved  by  the  Massachusetts  Board  of  Voting  Ma- 
chine Examiners  and  can  be  constructed  to  meet  all  re- 
quirements in  the  State  of  Illinois  if  the  opportunity  is 
granted  us  for  the  time  extension  as  aforesaid. 
"Yours  very  respectfully, 
"Amekican  Voting  Machine  Company. 

"Per  Fbed'k  E.  Nickels, 
Treas." 
340      "Q.    You  made  a  motion  to  put  that  letter  on  file,  did 
you?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  It  received  no  further  consideration!  A.  Well,  I 
don't —  Yes,  there  was.  I  think  the  letters  were  written 
to  the  American  Voting  Machine  Company  by  the  Clerk 
explaining  that  under  the  active  suggestion  of  Judge 
Owens,  the  period  for  practical  bidding  would  be  extended 


46  Communication  of  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency. 

up  to  the  time  when  the  experts  finished  their  examina- 
tion. 

"Q.  Let  me  refresh  your  recollection  on  it.  The  time 
was  extended  from  May  22d  to  May  26th  first!  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

"Q.  Then  there  was  some  more  protests,  which  we 
will  have  to  read  here,  filed,  and  then  it  was  extended  four 
more  days  to  May  30th  f    A.    To  June  1st. 

"Q.    To  June  1st?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  And  then  a  statement  was  made  later  that  if  ma- 
chine came  in  between  that  time  and  the  opening  of  the 
bids  and  the  awarding  of  the  contract  it  would  be  con- 
sidered. That  is  what  it  was?  A.  Yes,  sir." 
341  Mr.  Winslow  filed  a  protest;  first  appeared  before  the 
Election  Commissioners  and  protested  verbally  and  said 
he  would  later  submit  a  protest  in  writing. 

May  20th,  1911. 
To  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 

of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
Gentlemen  : 

By  direction  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Chicago 
Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency,  I  am  transmitting  herewith 
a  report  on  the  proposed  purchase  of  voting  machines  by 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. 

As  stated  in  the  report  itself,  the  inquiry  on  which  the 
report  is  based  was  undertaken  when  it  was  learned 
through  public  advertisement  that  bids  were  to  be  opened 
on  May  22  for  1200  voting  machines.  This  work  is  in 
line  with  the  general  purpose  of  the  Bureau  of  Public 
Efficiency  to  make  studies  of  the  expenditures  of  the  local 
governing  bodies  and  to  furnish  the  public  with  exact  in- 
formation and  constructive  suggestion  relative  thereto. 

The  Judge  of  the  County  Court  and  the  members  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  and  its  officers  and  em- 
ployes have  been  most  cordial  in  affording  to  representa- 
tives of  this  Bureau  opportunity  to  secure  information 
on  the  subject  under  consideration.  This  report  is  of- 
fered not  in  a  spirit  of  hostile  criticism,  but  in  the  hope 
that  it  may  be  of  suggestive  value  to  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion and  of  benefit  to  the  taxpaying  public. 
Respectfully  submitted, 
Chicago  Bueeatj  of  Public  Efficiency. 

Hebbeet  R.  Sands, 
Director. 


No  Conference  With  City  Over  $1,000,000  Purchase.      ^Ti 

Report  on  the  Proposed  Plirchase  of  Voting  Machines 
by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of 
Chicago : 

On  April  27th,  1911,  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners of  the  City  of  Chicago  advertised  for  bids  for 
voting  machines,  the  bids  to  be  opened  May  22.  The  ad- 
vertisement calls  for  bids  on  1200  machines  with  delivery 
as  follows: 

Not  to  exceed  200  within  four  months  of  the  date  of 
signing  the  contract;  not  to  exceed  300  more  within  nine 
months;  the  balance  and  final  installment  within  twenty- 
one  months  from  the  date  of  signing  the  contract.  The 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  reserves  the  right  to 
take  a  less  number  of  machines  at  the  same  rate  and  to 
require  the  delivery  of  additional  machines  at  a  price 
no  higher  than  that  named  in  the  original  contract. 

The  amount  of  money  involved  in  this  transaction,  if 
the  number  of  voting  machines  named  in  the  specifications 
should  be  purchased,  presumably  would  be  in  excess  of 
$1,000,000.  No  well-defined  plan  for  financing  the  prop- 
osition seems  to  have  been  formulated,  but  in- 
quiry on  the  part  of  representatives  of  the  Chicago  Bu- 
reau of  Public  Efficiency  disclosed  the  fact  that  neither 
the  Comptroller  of  the  City  nor  the  finance  committee 
of  the  City  Council  had  been  consulted  upon  the  matter 
of  providing  funds  for  the  purchase  of  voting  machines. 
Bidders  themselves  are  asked  to  name  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions of  payemnt,  particularized  as  to  the  method, 
time,  amount,  interest,  etc. 

Further  inquiry  of  election  officials  and  others  by  mem- 
bers of  the  staff  of  this  bureau  disclosed  that  the  success- 
ful bidder  would  be  expected  to  take  in  payment  for  voting 
machines  purchased,  evidences  of  indebtedness  to  be  is- 
sued by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  with  the 
approval  of  the  County  Judge,  to  be  payable  by  the  City 
of  Chicago,  but  failed  to  develop  what  the  character  of 
such  evidences  of  indebtedness  would  be,  the  form  there- 
of, or  what  provisions  were  to  be  made  for  liquidating 
the  same  as  they  matured. 

In  view  of  this  somewhat  anomalous  situation,  the  Bu- 
reau of  Public  Efficiency  has  made  as  full  an  inquiry 
into  the  subject  as  the  limited  time  prior  to  the  opening 
of  bids  would  permit,  the  results  and  conclusions  of  that 
inquiry  are  set  forth  herein. 

The  General  Assembly  of  Illinois  in  1903  passed  a  law 


48  Contrasted  Action  of  Previous  Commission. 

authorizing  the  use  of  voting  machines  in  this  State.  By 
the  terms  of  the  act,  election  officials  are  authorized  to 
submit  to  the  voters  of  specified  civil  divisions  of  the 
State  the  proposition  to  adopt  a  voting  machine  or  voting 
machines.  When  the  people  vote  affirmatively  upon  such 
propositions  the  proper  election  officials  may  lease  or 
purchase  voting  machines. 

"The  requirements  which  must  be  met  by  the  voting 
machine  adopted  are  laid  down  with  considerable  particu- 
larity in  the  act  and  provision  is  made  for  a  board  of  vot- 
ing machine  commissioners,  consisting  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  State  and  of  two  other  persons,  who  shall  be  jne- 
chanical  experts,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor.  No 
machine  may  be  purchased  without  the  certification  of  this 
state  board  of  voting  machine  commissioners  that  it  meets 
the  requirements  of  the  statute. 

"On  November  4th,  1904,  the  general  proposition  to 
adopt  voting  machines  was  submitted  to  the  electors  of 
Chicago  and  Was  approved  by  a  vote  of  229,557  for,  27,081 
against.  Prior  to  that  time  some  experimental  use  had 
been  made  of  machines  placed  on  trial  in  a  few  selected 
precincts  and  immediately  thereafter  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  took  steps  looking  to  the  purchase  of 
voting  machines.  Bids  were  asked  and  opened  on  three 
different  occasions. 

"November  21,  1904,  the  Board  called  for  bids  on  such 
number  of  machines  as  might  be  necessary  to  equip  the 
polling  places  under  its  supervision.  The  following  July 
all  the  bids  submitted  under  this  call  were  withdrawn  and 
the  manufacturers  agreed  to  submit  machines  for  experi- 
mental use.  At  the  fall  election  of  1905  and  again  in  the 
April  1907  election,  machines  were  so  used. 

* '  The  City  Council  having  appropriated  $100,000  in  the 
1907  Budget,  advertised  for  bids  for  furnishing  machines 
to  that  amount,  the  Board  to  have  the  right  to  make  pur- 
chase for  any  part  thereof.  The  bids  received  in  response 
to  this  advertisement  were  opened  October  31,  1907,  and 
purchase  thereunder  deferred,  pending  the  examinations 
of  the  machines  by  the  Board's  experts.  These  tests  were 
commenced  immediately  and  continued  until  March  23, 
1908,  when  the  Board  decided  not  to  purchase  at  that 
time.  (Pending  this  decision  the  City  Council  again 
in  the  1908  Budget  appropriated  $100,000  for  the  pur- 
chase of  machines.)    Serious  objection  to  the  mechanical 


Previous  Commission  Fitids  MechanicaX  Defects.        49 

construction  of  the  machines  was  assigned  as  the  reason 
for  rejecting  the  bids. 

"January  15, 1909,  the  Board  again  advertised  for  bids 
to  be  opened  September  15th  of  that  year.  It  was  pro- 
posed to  purchase  machines  to  such  an  amount,  not  to  ex- 
ceed $100,000,  as  the  Board  might  determine.  In  re- 
sponse to  this  call  four  machines  were  offered  in  competi- 
tion, the  names  of  the  machines  and  the  prices  bid  being 
as  follows : 

"Empire,  |925,  with  primary  attachment,  $50  addi- 
tional. 

"Willix,  $1050. 

"Triumph,  $900.  with  instruction  model,  $925. 

"Winslow,  $900; 

"After  these  machines  had  been  tested  by  experts  the 
Board  rejected  all  the  bids  and  in  so  doing  rendered  a 
decision  which  was  in  part  as  follows : 

"As  in  the  previous  investigation,  the  machines  were 
thoroughly  inspected  and  tested  by  three  mechanical  ex- 
perts at  the  instance  of  the  Board.  Their  detailed  reports 
show  that  while  substantial  improvements  have  been  made 
within  the  past  year,  yet  there  are  still  remaining  siich 
defects  in  the  mechanical  arrangements  of  all  the  ma- 
chines submitted  as  to  preclude  their  practical  use  in  this 
city. 

"This  Board  is  of  the  opinion  that  among  the  many 
necessary  essentials  required  by  the  specifications  none 
is  of  greater  importance  than  that  which  requires  a  ma- 
chine to  record  the  vote  in  strict  compliance  with  the  law, 
and  absolutely  prevent  a  person  voting  for  more  candi- 
dates than  there  are  officers  to  be  elected. 

"A  machine  which  can  be  so  manipulated  as  to  permit  a 
voter  to  vote  for  more  candidates  than  the  law  permits  is 
fatally  defecti^'e  and  its  use  would  only  be  productive  of 
protest  and  costly  litigation. 

"Each  machine  is  found  to  be  seriously  defective  and 
their  purchase  at  this  time  impracticable;  therefore,  all 
bids  will  be  rejected. 

"The  defect  in  each  machine  will  be  shown  to  the  rep- 
resentative of  that  machine. 

"This  Board  in  response  to  an  overwhelming  vote  on 
the  proposition  has  faithfully  tried  to  find  a  satisfactory 
voting  machine.  Our  efforts  so  far  have  been  in  vain. 
We  do  not  know  when  we  will  advertise  again  for  bids, 


50  Points  Out  Deficiencies  in  Report. 

if  at  all,  but  we  desire  to  purchase  voting  machines  as  soon 
as  one  that  is  satisfactory  is  presented. 

"Therefore,  we  desire  to  announce  that  if  any  time 
after  the  first  day  of  December,  1909,  any  one  believes  that 
he  or  they  have  a  voting  machine  that  will  answer  our  pur- 
poses, we  invite  you  to  bring  it  to  the  Board,  and  the  same 
will  be  inspected. 

"It  seems  to  us  that  this  will  be  a  proper  time  again 
to  give  all  the  suggestions  we  are  able  to  in  reference  to 
the  kind  of  a  machine  that  the  Board  wants  to  buy. 

"  'First:  The  machine  must  allow  voting  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

"  'Second:  The  machine  must  prevent  any  voting  not 
in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

' '  '  Third :  It  must  be  accurate,  positive  and  incapable 
of  fraudulent  manipulation. 

"  'Fourth:  We  want  as  small  a  machine  as  is  prac- 
ticable. 

' '  '  Fifth :    We  want  as  light  a  machine  as  practicable. 

"  'Sixth :  And,  taking  afi  the  foregoing  into  considera- 
tion, we  want  as  cheap  a  machine  as  possible. 

"  'Seventh:  When  such  a  machine  is  presented  to  us 
a  purchase  will  be  made." 

"  'In  response  to  the  foregoing  invitation,  during  the 
spring  and  summer  of  1910  three  machines  were  submitted 
and  were  examined  by  mechanical  experts  employed  by 
the  Board.  None  of  these  machines  received  the  unquali- 
fied endorsement  of  the  experts. 

"Although  many  improvements  had  been  effected  in  the 
interim,  it  was  the  opinion  of  these  men  that  it  was  not 
then  advisable  to  purchase  a  large  number  of  machines 
and  that  great  improvements  were  to  be  looked  for  in  the 
future.  The  machines  on  which  the  mechanical  detail 
had  been  more  satisfactorily  worked  out  were  said  to  be 
large,  heavy,  difficult  to  handle  and  store  and  not  easily 
set  up  and  adjusted — in  this  connection  affording  oppor- 
tunities for  careless  or  dishonest  officials  to  nullify  the  op- 
eration of  the  machine. 

"Early  in  the  present  year  the  new  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  that  came  into  office  last  December  took 
up  for  consideration  the  subject  of  the  purchase  of  voting 
machines.  On  April  27th,  as  stated  at  the  outset  of  this 
report,  the  Board  decided  to  advertise  for  bids  for  1,200 
voting  machines,  the  bids  to  be  opened  on  May  22nd.  Prior 


Objections  to  Large  Initial  Purchase.  51 

specifications  bad  limited  the  bids  for  macbines  to  the 
number  that  could  be  secured  for  $100,000. 

"There  are  numerous  objections  to  the  purchase  on 
one  order  of  so  large  .a  number  of  voting  machines  as 
1,200.  According  to  the  experts  who  have  made  examina- 
tions heretofore  for  the  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers, the  voting  machine  is  still  in  somewhat  of  an  experi- 
mental state  and  substantial  improvements  may  be  looked 
for  in  the  future. 

"The  Chicago  situation  presents  unusual  obstacles  to 
the  successful  use  of  voting  machines.  Among  these  are 
the  long  ballot  made  necessary  by  the  large  number  of 
offices  to  be  filled  at  some  elections ;  the  group  voting  for 
certain  offices,  such  as  judges  and  county  commissioners ; 
and  the  system  of  cumulative  voting  for  members  of  the 
lower  House  of  the  General  Assembly,  which  is  peculiar 
to  Illinois.  The  fact  that  women  may  vote  for  University 
Trustees  but  not  for  other  officers  requires  a  restrictive 
device  that  introduces  additional  complications.  The  long 
ballot  necessitates  the  use,  in  Chicago,  of  a  larger  and 
heavier  machine  than  is  required  in  other  cities  that  have 
adopted  voting  machines.  The  size  and  weight  of  the  ma- 
chine causes  it  to  present  problems  of  transportation,  of 
storing  and  of  setting  up  in  the  voting  booth.  There  are 
special  complexities  due  to  the  use  of  the  voting  machine 
at  a  primary  election  at  which  nominations  are  to  be  made 
for  a  large  number  of  offices. 

"Aside  from  the  mechanical  operation  of  the  machine 
itself  there  are  other  elements  of  uncertainty  connected 
with  the  use  of  voting  machines  than  for  experimentation 
and  caution.  It  cannot  be  told  until  the  actual  trial  is 
made  how  rapidly  the  voting  can  be  done  by  machine,  even 
assuming  the  mechanism  to  operate  perfectly  so  far  as  all 
except  the  human  element  is  concerned.  This  Bureau 
learns  that  in  Minneapolis,  where  voting  machines  are  in 
use,  the  voting  has  been  so  much  slower  than  anticipated 
that  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  install  two  machines 
to  a  precinct  of  600  voters,  instead  of  one.  The  Illinois 
law  contemplated  a  single  machine  to  a  precinct  of  600 
voters.  Then  there  are  problems  of  transportation  and 
storage  and  the  proper  setting  of  the  machines  in  the 
booths.  Three  of  those  machines  will  make  a  truck-load 
and  it  will  require  at  least  three  men  to  handle  one. 
Skilled  persons  will  be  required  to  set  them  up  when 


52        Small  Purchase  and  Experiment  Recommended. 

taken  from  the  storage  room  to  the  voting  booth.  It  would 
seem  that  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  ought  to 
acquire  experience  in  handling  50  or  100  machines  before 
undertaking  the  burden  of  managing  1,200.  This  experi- 
ence, moreover,  should  be  in  connection  with  the  most  try- 
ing elections  such  as  the  primary  of  April,  1912,  and  the 
election  of  the  following  November,  when  the  long  ballot 
must  be  voted. 

"The  voting  machine  law  contemplates  that  following 
the  adoption  of  machines  the  number  of  voters  to  a  pre- 
cinct will  be  doubled  and  the  number  of  precincts  thus 
reduced  by  half.  The  statute  directs  the  rearrangement 
of  precincts  so  that  each  precinct  shall  contain  approxi- 
mately 600  voters.  On  the  basis  of  the  present  registra- 
tion, this  would  give  only  705  precincts.  As  there  is  sup- 
posed to  be  but  one  machine  to  a  precinct  with  possibly 
an  extra  machine  to  a  ward  for  emergency  pui-poses,  it 
.  is  hard  to  see  why  more  than  750  machines  at  the  out- 
side should  be  needed  if  the  requirements  of  the  statute 
are  to  be  followed.  One  of  the  chief  arguments  in  favor 
of  voting  machines  is  that  they  will  bring  about  a  sub- 
stantial decrease  in  the  cost  of  holding  elections.  Unless 
this  contemplated  reduction  in  the  number  of  precincts 
is  made,  the  desired  saving  will  not  be  effected. 

"The  financial  aspect  of  this  atfair  also  calls  for  se- 
rious consideration.  The  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners, with  respect  to  finances,  occupies  a  somewhat 
anomalous  position.  Under  the  law  some  of  its  expenses 
must  be  paid  by  the  County  of  Cook,  others  by  the  City  of 
Chicago.  The  Board  claims,  and  probably  rightly,  so  far 
as  ordinary  expenses  are  concerned,  that  it  has  the  power 
to  incur  liabilities,  for  the  payment  of  which  provision 
must  be  made  by  the  City  or  County,  as  the  case  may  be. 

"The  Board  appears  to  assume,  and  perhaps  rightly, 
that  this  power  to  incur  indebtedness  in  the  name  of  the 
City,  without  the  consent  of  its  officers,  is  broad  enough 
to  include  the  purchase  of  voting  machines  to  the  amount 
of  11,000,000  or  more. 

"The  manner  in  which  this  obligation  is  to  be  provided 
for  is  not  clear.  The  financial  officers  of  the  City  have 
been  in  no  way  consulted  in  the  matter,  and  it  evidently 
is  the  intention  of  the  Election  Commissioners  to  issue 
in  payment  evidences  of  indebtedness  in  some  form  which 
shall  be  payable  by  the  City.    Whatever  power  there  is 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  53 

to  do  so  (except  as  to  warrants  issued  by  the  County 
Judge  under  the  City  Election  Law)  is  to  be  found  in 
Section  5  of  the  Voting  Machine  Law,  which  is  as  follows : 

"  'The  Local  authorities,  on  the  adoption  and  lease  or 
purchase  of  a  voting  machine  or  voting  machines,  may 
provide  for  the  payment  therefor  in  such  manner  as  may 
be  deemed  for  the  best  interest  of  the  City,  Village,  in- 
corporated town  or  county.  They  may  for  that  purpose 
make  leases,  issue  bonds,  certificates  of  indebtedness  or 
other  obligations,  which  shall  be  a  charge  on  the  city, 
village,  incorporated  town  or  county.  Such  bonds,  cer- 
tificates or  other  obligations  may  be  issued  with  or  with- 
out interest,  payable  at  such  times  or  time  as  the  authori- 
ties may  determine,  but  shall  not  be  issued  or  sold  at  less 
than  par.' 

"So  far  as  investigators  for  this  Bureau  have  been  able 
to  learn  there  are  in  the  records  of  the  office  of  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  no  written  legal  opinions  covering 
this  point,  nor  has  it  been  passed  upon  by  the  courts. 

"For  the  purpose  of  this  discussion,  however,  the  legal 
power  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  to  issue 
without  conference  with  the  City  authorities  evidences  of 
indebtedness  which  the  City  must  pay,  is  a  matter  of  less 
moment  than  the  wisdom  of  the  course.  With  reference 
to  ordinary  expenditures  of  the  Board,  while  holding  that 
it  is  not  bound  in  law  to  request  appropriations  from  the 
City  Council,  does  go  through  the  form  of  stating  its 
wants  to  that  body  and  of  having  appropriations  made 
for  it,  as  is  done  for  other  departments  of  the  City  gov- 
ernments. This  is  the  course  which  the  Board  ought  to 
pursue.  Any  other  procedure  would  tend  to  demoralize 
the  finances  of  the  City.  The  power  conferred  by  law 
upon  the  Election  Commissioners  to  compel  the  City  to 
pay  its  expenses  was  not  intended  for  arbitrary  or  whim- 
sical use,  but  only  as  a  safeguard  to  prevent  a  contuma- 
cious city  government  from  interfering  with  the  election 
processes  by  wantonly  refusing  to  make  appropriations 
for  the  necessary  expenses  thereof. 

"If  this  is  the  correct  view  with  respect  to  ordinaiy 
expenditures  involving  comparatively  small  amounts,  the 
same  reasoning,  of  course,  would  apply  with  still  greater 
force  to  the  proposition  to  incur  obligations  of  large 
amounts  for  extraordinary  purposes,  such  as  the  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines.    Public  opinion  should  demand 


54  Conference  With  City  Officers  Urged. 

that  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  confer  with 
the  financial  officers  of  the  City  prior  to  the  incurring 
of  obligations  of  $1,000,000  or  even  for  $100,000,  the 
amount  which  the  prior  Board  planned  to  spend  for  vot- 
ing machines.  The  prior  Board  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
twice  secure  Council  appropriations  for  $100,000  for  the 
purchase  of  voting  machines,  in  advance  of  the  opening 
of  bids,  which  appropriations  were  not  drawn  upon  be- 
cause the  machines  were  not  actually  purchased.  Action 
by  the  City  Council  in  advance,  whether  necessary  in  law 
or  not,  is  essential  from  the  viewpoint  of  public  economy. 
Evidences  of  indebtedness  issued  by  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners,  mthout  previous  council  approval, 
would  occupy  such  a  novel  status  that  they  would  of 
necessity  have  to  carry  a  higher  rate  of  interest  to  enable 
them  to  sell  at  par.  The  City  can  borrow  for  about  four 
per  cent.  Obligations  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners presumably  would  carry  a  rate  at  least  one  per 
cent,  higher,  and  one  per  cent,  on  $1,000,000  amounts  to 
$10,000  a  year,  a  sum  worth  saving.  Not  only  should  the 
financial  officers  of  the  City  be  consulted  in  advance  of 
the  issuances  of  such  evidences  of  indebetdness,  but  they 
ought  to  be  consulted  in  advance  of  the  advertisement  for 
bids.  For  certainty  as  to  the  plans  for  payment  might 
be  a  factor  with  bidders  in  fixing  the  prices  quoted;  the 
more  definite  and  clear  the  arrangement  for  prompt  pay- 
ment, the  lower  the  price. 

"In  reply  to  what  has  been  stated  herein  it  may  be  said 
that  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  while  it  has 
called  for  bids  on  1200  machines,  might  not  decide  to  pur- 
chase that  number.  It  has  the  right  under  the  specifica- 
tions to  take  a  smaller  number  than  1,200,  or  to  reject  all 
the  bids.  The  requirement  that  every  bidder  must  submit 
with  his  bid  a  certified  check  for  5  per  cent,  of  the  amount 
of  the  bid  in  all  probability  means  a  check  for  approxi- 
mately $50,000.  This  sum  might  be  so  large  as  to  deter 
some  bidders.  If  it  be  not  the  plan  to  purchase  1,200  ma- 
chines, the  amount  of  the  deposit  should  be  less.  The  re- 
quirement as  to  the  delivery  of  the  machines,  in  case  an 
order  for  1,200  is  placed,  would  also  seem  to  be  so  severe 
that  strict  compliance  with  the  specifications  in  this  re- 
spect would  be  out  of  the  question  for  most  bidders,  if 
not  all. 

"The  main  conclusions  reached  as  the  result  of  this  in- 
quiry may  be  summarized  as  follows : 


Conclusions  of  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency.  55 

"1st.  The  number  of  voting  machines  to  be  purchased 
in  the  near  future  should  be  limited  to  one  hundred  at 
the  most;  and  the  purchase  of  a  greater  number  of  ma- 
chines should  be  postponed  until  after  trial  at  the  pri- 
maries of  April,  1912,  and  at  the  election  of  November, 
1912,  of  such  limited  number  of  machines. 

"2nd.  The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  should 
seek  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  tinancial  authorities 
of  the  City  in  advance  of  action  looking  to  the  purchase 
of  voting  machines,  whatever  the  amount  involved. 

"In  offering  these  suggestions,  the  Chicago  Bureau  of 
Public  Efficiency  wishes  to  be  understood  as  in  no  wise 
hostile  to  the  adoption  of  voting  machines.  It  merely 
urges  the  policy  of  experimentation  and  caution  which  it 
believes  is  demanded  by  ordinary  business  prudence,  in 
view  of  the  difficulties  and  uncertainties  of  the  situation, 
which  are  greater  for  Chicago  than  for  any  other  city  in 
the  land. 

"End." 


VOLUME  V. 

Morning  Session. 

Thursday,  July  24,  1913. 

363  Howard  S.  Taylor: 

* '  Q.  Doctor,  have  you  refreshed  your  recollection  about 
the  approval  of  those  minutes  over  night?  A.  Oh, 
why,  no,  sir;  I  cannot  refresh  it. 

"Q.  Will  you  say  that  the  minutes  of  April  24th  are 
accurate  or  not,  the  one  we  discussed  last  night?  I  will 
change  the  form  of  that  question — I  say,  do  you  claim  they 
are  inaccurate?  A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  claim  that  about 
any  of  the  minutes. 

"Q.  Yes.  A.  I  simply  say  that,  in  the  main,  taking 
the  minutes  as  they  were  written  off  of  the  books  for 
the  Commission,  I  think  in  the  principal  parts  they  were 
accurate,  there  are  some  little  matters  that  I  don't  know 
about.     I  won't  say  that  they  were  not." 

364  The  Chairma??.  Doctor,  when  you  say  that  those  mat- 
ters that  you  are  not  so  certain  about,  would  you  say 
they  would  be  vital  in  any  way? 


56  Communications  Placed  on  File. 

"A.  No;  I  could  hardly  determine  that;  they  might 
prove  to  be  vital,  but  I  think  that  they  were  inferior  and 
quite  subordinate  to  the  main  topics.  I  was  asked  by 
the  Governor  to  say  whether  certain  things  were  true, 
and  I  replied  that  I  could  not  say  so,  but  I  think  in  the 
main ' ' — 

Witness  thinks  that  the  communication  from  the  Bureau 
of  Public  Efficiency  was  read  over  at  the  meeting,  or 
shortly  afterwards.  Cannot  tell  whether  it  was  read  at 
the  meeting.  The  witness  made  a  motion  to  place  it  on 
file. 

"Q.  Without  reading  it?  A.  I  think  that  we  knew 
the  contents  of  it,  probably  it  was  read.  I  think  so ;  I  am 
not  sure." 

365  "Q.  Let  me  read  from  page  71.  (Beading):  'Com- 
missioner Taylor:  I  move  that  the  protest  of  Mr. 
Winslow  and  the  communication  from  the  Chicago  Bu- 
reau of  Public  Efficiency  be  received  and  placed  on  file 
for  further  consideration  and  the  secretary  be  directed 
to  notify  those  parties  to  that  effect. '  Does  that  refresh 
your  recollection?    A.    I  think  that  was  my  motion. 

"Q.  Now,  you  think  that  was  not  read,  don't  you? 
A.     I  cannot  say. 

"Q.  Was  it  given  any  consideration  thereafter  by 
the  Board?  A.  I  do  not  think  the  Board  ever  took  the 
matter  up  as  a  Board. 

"Q.     Officially?     A.     Officially. 

"Q.  Did  you  give  it  consideration?  A.  Yes,  I  think 
so. 

"Q.  The  law  required  the  Election  Commissioners  to 
redistrict  the  city  into  election  precincts  of  6CM3  voters 
each." 

366  The  law  permitted  the  voter  to  take  one  minute  only 
for  voting. 

The  witness  recalls  that  the  communication  of  the  Bu- 
reau of  Public  Efficiency  made  a  statement  that  in  Min- 
nesota it  was  found  impossible  for  voters  to  vote  in  one 
minute,  and  it  was  necessary  to  place  additional  machines 
in  the  voting  precincts. 

Q.  Did  the  Board  make  any  inquiry  as  to  the  fact  re- 
lating to  that  statement?  A.  I  think  we  had  informa- 
tion then ;  I  know  we  have  now. 

"Q.  I  say,  did  the  Board  make  any  such  inquiry?  A. 
As  a  Board,  bv  resolution? 

"Q.    Officially,  yes.  ?  A.    I  think  not. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  57 

"Q.    You  think  not?    A.    No. 

"Q.  Was  that  matter  discussed  in  official  meeting 
by  the  Board?  A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  was.  I  couldn't 
say  as  to  that." 

367  Witness  thinks  that  the  Election  Commissioners  had 
information  about  the  Minneapolis  situation  on  file 
from  previous  inquiries  and  that  further  information  was 
secured  more  recently. 

Witness  does  not  know  that  they  had  any  information 
in  relation  to  voting  in  one  minute.  The  Election  Com- 
mission is  still  urging  the  City  Council  to  pay  for  the  300 
machines  delivered. 

The  witness  does  not  think  that  the  Election  Commis- 
.  sion  has  information  to  the  effect  that  the  State  of  Minne- 
sota passed  a  law  requiring  printed  ballots  to  be  fur- 
nished to  precincts  where  they  had  voting  machines.  The 
"witness  will  not  say  that  such  is  not  the  fact,  but  the 
witness'  understanding  is  that  Minnesota  passed  a  law 
abolishing  the  party  circle  which  made  it  difficult  to  vote 
so  that  they  were  compelled  to  use  two  machines  to  a 
precinct  instead  of  one. 

368  "Q.  Well,  in  the  event  you  would  be  required  in  Chi- 
cago, with  its  larger  and  more  complex  ballot,  to  use  two 
machines  to  a  precinct,  that  would  require  another  million 
dollars,  wouldn't  it?    A.    I  presume  it  would,  yes. 

"Q.  Now,  if  the  women  have  a  right  to  vote  it  would 
require  about  two  million  more,  about  four  million, 
wouldn't  it?     A.     I  think  not  that  number — 

"Q.  I  say,  based  on  the  experience  of  Minneapolis? 
A.     The  w^omen  don't  vote  up  there. 

' '  Q.  But,  I  say,  based  upon  the  experience  of  the  voters 
in  Minneapolis.  A.  If  the  women  registered  and  were 
as  numerous  as  the  men,  and  the  party  circle  were  abol- 
ished in  this  state,  so  that  they  would  have  to  vote  each 
individual  key,  then,  probably,  we  would  have  to  have 
four  million  dollars. 

"Q.    Four  million  dollars?    A.    Four  million  dollars." 

The  witness  does  not  concede  that  if  the  vote  is  limited 
to  the  men  and  we  have  the  same  experience  in  Chicago 
that  they  had  in  Minneapolis,  it  would  require  two  million 
dollars.  Thinks  that  the  1,000  machines  purchased  are 
enough  to  poll  the  vote  in  the  City  of  Chicago  at  any 
election. 
370  The  witness  has  read  the  decision  of  the  Illinois  Su- 
preme Court,  dated  February  6,  1913,  Hill  vs.  Election 


58  The  Supreme  Court  Decision. 

Commissioners,  does  not  think  that  the  court  holds  that 
the  voting  machine  does  not  comply  with  the  law  in  re- 
spect to  voting  in  one  minute.  Does  not  so  understand 
the  decision. 

"Q.  What  is  your  understanding  of  the  decision?  A. 
My  understanding  is  that  in  the  original  oral  opinion, 
a  certified  copy  of  which  is  in  the  office,  the  court  said, 
'We  do  not  condemn  voting  machines,  or  this  machine, 
but  at  the  election  in  November  we  find  that  the  average 
voter  will  not  be  able  to  vote  so  large  a  ballot  with  so 
many  propositions  in  the  space  of  one  minute.'     There- 

371  upon  the  court  issued  a  writ  of  mandamus  requiring  us  to 
put  ballots  in  the  polling  places  in  addition  to  the  ma- 
chines in" — 

"Q.  Go  ahead.  A.  In  the  modified  decision,  the  modi- 
fied written  decision,  the  court  said  that  they  found  that 
the  machine  did  not  comply  with  the  law  for  the  election 
of  November  5,  1912. 

"Q.    A  legal  election?    A.    Yes,  that  election. 

"Q.  That  is  the  real  decision  then,  wasn't  it?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

"Q.    Instead  of  the  oral  one. 

"In  view  of  the  decision  do  you  still  say  that  the 
voters  here  in  Chicago  can  vote  in  one  minute  on 
that  machine? 

"A.  The  voters  in  Chicago,  if  they  would  take  the 
pains  to  examine  the  specimen  ballot  in  the  booth,  that 
the  average  voter  can  vote  in  a  minute  and  split,  and  I 
think  that  the  fifty  or  sixty  per  cent,  of  the  men  who 
ballot,  according  to  my  information,  and  my  notion,  vote 
a  straight  ticket,  could  vote  in  five  or  six  seconds." 

372  The  witness  does  not  think  a  voter  at  the  presidential 
election  of  1912  could  go  into  a  voting  machine  and  do 
the  work  that  he  ought  to  do  before  he  enters ;  an  elector 
can  be  informed  both  as  to  the  position  of  the  candidates 
on  the  keyboard  and  to  be  informed  as  to  how  to  operate 
it  by  the  model  out  in  the  main  room,  and  he  ought,  I 
think,  the  average  voter,  a  man  of  intelligence,  ought  to 
be  able  to  vote  within  one  minute. 

373  Witness  identifies  a  card  containing  Question  No.  1 
voted  on  last  November  election  and  reads  question  ap- 
pearing on  pages  374  to  379  of  the  record  in  eight  min- 
utes. 

380      This  was  not  the  only  question  submitted  to  the  vot- 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  59 

ers.  There  were  at  least  four  others.  The  specifications, 
paragraph  b,  require  that  the  machine  should  provide 
for  12  propositions  at  one  and  the  same  election. 

The  voter  could  post  himself  outside  the  booth  on  the 
position  and  character  of  the  propositions  to  be  voted 
on.    The  law  does  not  require  him  to  do  so. 

381  The  Election  Commissioners  were  required  to  re- 
district  the  city  into  precincts  of  600  voters  each.  The 
voting  hours  contain  600  minutes.  In  the  City  of 
Chicago,  when  the  contract  was  made,  the  women  had  a 
right  to  vote  for  University  Trustees.  The  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  was  required  to  make  provision 
for  their  vote  also,  or  make  provision  for  600  voters  re- 

•  gardless  of  whether  they  were  men  or  women.  If  so,  it 
might  have  doubled  the  precincts  and  required  twice  as 
many  machines. 

382  The  voting  machine  had  to  cover  the  primary  ballot 
also.  Witness  does  not  recall  the  number  of  candidates 
in  the  primaries  of  April,  1912.  Witness  presumes  the 
Election  Commissioners  had  not  conferred  with  the 
Mayor  or  Comptroller,  the  Chairman,  or  any  member 
of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  City  Council  regarding 
the  financing  voting  machines.    He  had  not  done  so. 

383  On  requiring  a  certified  check  for  5  per  cent,  of  the  ag- 
gregate amount  of  the  bid,  witness  thought  this  a  rea- 
sonable sum  and  a  sum  the  City  usually  required.  Also 
wanted  to  be  sure  that  the  men  who  bid  really  meant 
business.  It  was  rumored  that  a  lot  of  them  were  sim- 
ply living  off  sample  machines  and  their  object  was  to 
sell  out,  not  to  the  City,  not  sell  machines  to  the  City, 
but  sell  their  supposed  rights  to  other  companies. 

There  were  other  people  who  perhaps  really  believed 
they  had  machines  and  would  bring  all  sorts  of  things  and 
present  them.     "I  believe,  in  one  of  the  last  reports  of 

384  the  old  Board's  experts,  three  of  the  machines  were  not 
reported  on  because, — I  think  it  was  Mr.  Olson  said  that 
they  were  not  worth  considering,  or  something  of  that 
purport.  So  it  was  our  desire, — at  least  that  was  in  my 
mind, — that  the  machines  that  should  compete  here,  and 
take  up  the  time  of  the  Board  and  experts,  would  be  men 
who  meant  business.  We  afterwards  relaxed  that  rule 
and  allowed  Mr.  Winslow  to  bid  for  only  50  machines 
and  to  put  up  a  correspondingly  small  bond. ' ' 


60  The  Five  Per  Cent.  Deposit  Requirement. 

"I  cannot  tell  whether  the  rule  was  relaxed  in  behalf 
of  Winslow  before  June  1st,  1911." 

"Q.  Now,  about  these  machines,  the  owners  of  the 
machines  who  wanted  to  sell  out ;  to  whom  did  they  want 
to  sell  out!  A.  Well,  we  had  one  instance  in  which  Mr. 
Winslow  undertook  to  sell  out  to  the  Empire  Company." 
386  The  witness  thought  that  four  companies,  the  Empire, 
the  Triumph,  the  Winslow  and  the  International,  if  they 
had  inducements  to  sell,  could  very  readily  equip  them- 
selves for  the  purpose.  Witness'  impression  at  the  time 
of  sending  out  specifications  was  that  either  one  of  the 
four  companies  might  get  the  contract.  This,  and  the 
fact  that  the  precedent  M'as  around  5%,  was  what  deter- 
mined the  5%  requirement. 

389  The  specifications  also  called  for  $250,000  bonds. 

390  "A.  My  thought  Avas  that  if  we  should  get  an  install- 
ment of  machines,  or  two  installments,  and  it  would  prove 
that  the  machines  were  deficient  and  not  up  to  the  guar- 
anty of  the  contract,  that  we  would  have  some  recourse 
or  would  have  a  bond  from  some  indemnity  company." 
This  would  be  true  no  matter  what  voting  machine  com- 
pany furnished  the  bond. 

391  "We  would  rely  upon  the  bond  for  a  possible  deficiency 
of  the  machine,  but  we  would  rely  somewhat  on  the 
strength  of  the  companies  as  to  the  preliminary  bid." 

"Q.  Why  did  you  send  letters  to  39  companies  when 
only  four  companies  were  considered  1  A.  The  hope  was 
394  to  get  in  anybody  that  knew  anything  about  voting  ma- 
chines to  make  an  application  and  let  us  see  what  they 
had. 

"Q.  Did  you  intend  to  pay  any  attention  to  any  com- 
panies save  the  four  you  mentioned?  A.  If  they  should 
develop  that  they  had  machines,  certainly. 

"Q.  What  if  it  did  develop  that  they  had  the  machine, 
but  not  the  equipment  or  factory?  Did  you  intend  to 
ignore  it?  A.  That  does  not  follow  as  a  consequence  at 
all ;  I  am  speaking  of  my  own  opinion ;  my  thought  was 
that  men  that  had  a  good  machine  could  finance  it  very 
quickly  without  so  much  trouble  and  get  it — and  I  further 
thought  that  there  might  be,  somewhere  in  the  progress 
of  things,  an  ideal  machine  that  I  did  not  know  anything 
about  and  never  had  heard  about. 

"Q.     But  that  ideal  machine  that  you  had  in  your  im- 


The  Purchase  of  1200  Voting  Machines.  61 

agination  would  require  the  owners  of  it  to  put  up  a  cer- 
tified check  for  $50,000?    A.    Yes. 

395  "Q.  And  did  you  not  think  that  the-  requirement  of 
$50,000  certified  check  would  crowd  out  nearly  all  of  those 
persons  to  whom  you  sent  notices  to  bid!     A.     Now,  I 

396  don't  recollect  on  that  at  all.  No,  it  didn't  occur  to  me 
that  it  could  have  operated." 

Witness  expected  to  make  an  examination  of  the  ma- 
chines submitted  but  to  rely  mainly  on  the  judgment  of 
the  experts  who  were  to  do  the  examining  for  the  Board. 
The  witness,  above  all,-  expected  to  make  inquiries  of 
places  where  machines  had  been  used  everywhere. 

397  The  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  objected  to  the  pur- 
chase of  1200  machines  at  one  time. 

"Q.  Was  that  considered  by  the  Board  of  Officials? 
A.  I  can't  recall  whether  we  actually  read  the  reports 
out  or  not  and  took  further  action  or  not,  but  I  re- 
member that  we  talked  around  about  it  and  I  had  a  copy 
of  the  report  and  looked  it  over  and  considered  it  as  ma- 
turely as  I  could  at  that  time." 

398  There  were  a  number  of  reasons  for  mentioning  1200 
rather  than  100  machines  in  the  specifications. 

400  Witness  did  not  confer  with  Powell  about  his  article. 
The  article  had  been  written  five  years  before.  At  that 
time  witness  had  also  read  the  action  of  the  preceding 
Board  and  knew  that  every  machine  presented  to  it  had 
been  rejected. 

401  This  document  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  New  Jersey 
was  dated  1908 ;  the  New  Jersey  law  was  repealed  in  1911. 
The  New  Jersey  document  is  on  file  in  the  office  of  the 
Election  Commissioners.  It  is  the  annual  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  State. 

402  The  witness  does  not  know  the  date  of  the  document; 
it  had  been  made,  however,  before  it  came  up  to  the  voting 
machine  problem  in  the  spring  of  1911. 

Witness  does  not  know  whether  the  voting  machine  law 
of  New  Jersey  was  repealed  two  days  before  the  Chi- 
cago Election  Commissioners  advertised  for  bids. 

The  grand  jury  report  of  1908  recommended  that  satis- 
factory voting  machines  should  be  installed  in  each  pre- 
cinct in  the  City  of  Chicago  at  the  earliest  practicable 
moment. 

403  Witness  thought  it  proper  to  purchase  a  large  number 
of  machines  at  the  start,  because  experimentation  had 


62  Financing  the  Purchase. 

been  going  on  here  for  a  number  of  years  and  in  other 
states  voting  machines  had  been  used  for  as  much  as  13 
years  and  that  the  data  regarding  voting  machines  was 
well  known  to  people  interested. 

All  machines  had  been  rejected  after  experiment  by 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners. 

The  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  communication  goes' 
into  financing  and  opposes  the  methods  adopted.     The 

404  Election  Commission  did  not  go  into  that.  The  witness 
did  not,  had  not  the  time;  that  was  referred  to  Mr. 
Mitchell,  the  attorney  for  the  Board. 

This  matter  had  been  discussed  almost  from  the  in- 
ception of  the  voting  machine  question.  "Whether  we 
had  power  to  buy  or  whether  it  had  to  be  a  matter  for 
somebody  else." 

Witness  cannot  say  that  prior  to  April  24th,  1911,  the 
Board  had  ever  officially  requested  an  opinion  on  the 
subject  from  Mr.  Mitchell,  or  that  it  had  been  discussed 
at  any  Board  meeting.  Witness  thinks  that  the  Board 
had  an  informal  talk;  that  the  Board  was  the  only  in- 
strument fixed  by  the  law  to  do  it;  that  if  anybody  did 

405  it  the  Board  must  do  it.  "That  was  my  impression  of  his 
(Mitchell's)  view." 

* '  Q.  Did  he  indicate  to  you  any  plan  by  which  it  could 
be  done?  A.  Well,  the  plan  proposed  in  the  law  itself, 
by  the  issuance  of  certificates." 

The  purpose  of  asking  companies  to  outline  a  financial 
scheme  for  the  payment  for  machines  was  to  elicit  whether 
the  companies  would  be  willing  to,  as  they  had  done  in 
some  cases,  extend  the  indebtedness  at  a  low  rate  of  in- 
terest, so  as  to  allow  the  savings  to  pay  for  the  machine. 

Witness  does 'not  know  what    financial    scheme    was 

adopted  for  paying  for  voting  machines  in  Indianapolis, 

408  or  in  Milwaukee.    The  machines  used  in  Indianapolis  or 

Milwaukee  were  United  States  Standard,  owned  by  the 

Empire. 

The  witness  does  not  know  that  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  called  any  member  of  the  Bureau  of  Public 
Efficiency  before  it  to  discuss  the  question  of  financing. 
Witness  delivered  a  speech  on  the  voting  machine  ques- 
tion before  the  City  Club  and  several  prominent  members 
of  the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency. 

Chairman  asks  witness  if  he  said  that  Indianapolis  and 
Milwaukee  had  made  some  financial  arrangement  with 


Voting  Machines  in  Other  Cities.  63 

voting  machine  companies  by  which  a  saving  was  effected. 

410  "A.  I  did  not  intend  to  say  that:  if  I  did  say  that, 
I  mean  to  correct  it.  I  do  not  know  what  the  scheme  was. 
.It  is  possible  they  paid  all  cash  at  the  time  they  bought 
their  machines." 

In  Indianapolis  and  Milwaukee  they  use  the  United 
States  Standard  machine,  one  of  the  companies  that  finally 
merged  in  the  Empire. 

Witness  cannot  say  he  had  consulted  with  any  officials 
of  Milwaukee  or  Indianapolis  as  to  what  the  saving  would 
be.  A  lot  of  information  about  these  cities  is  in  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners '  office,  the  study  of  which  was  part  of 
witness'  emplo\Tnent;  experts'  reports  and  testimonials 
from  the  cities  which  the  press  in  Chicago  was  constantly 
giving. 

411  The  witness '  speech  at  the  City  Club  was  probably  July 
before  the  Commission  let  the  contract. 

412  The  speech  was  made  July  18th.  The  City  Club  bulletin 
containing  the  speech  is  dated  July  31st. 

413-4  The  witness  does  not  think  the  speech  was  made  after 
the  Election  Commissioners'  decision  on  the  voting  ma- 
chine and  says  the  bulletin  is  not  conclusive  on  it.  Thinks 
the  resolution  was  passed  July  21  and  the  contract  signed 
July  25th. 

414  On  June  30th  the  Commission  decided  only  that  the  Em- 
pire Company  was  the  preferred  exhibitor  and  that  they 
were  to  be  notified  that  the  Election  Commissioners  stood 
ready  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  them.  Witness  be- 
lieves that  the  contract  was  in  the  course  of  preparation 
but  does  not  think  the  contract  had  been  submitted  to  the 
Election  Commissioners  on  July  18th. 

415  Witness'  best  recollection  is  that  the  contract  was 
signed  July  25th . 

"Sen.  Landee.    Q.    Was  not  the  resolution  in  June? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  'It  was  resolved  that  any  two  members 
of  this  Board,  that  is  the  resolving  part,  together  with 
the  Chief  Clerk  of  this  Board,  be,  and  they  are  hereby 
authorized  to  execute  and  deliver  a  written  contract,  a 
copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached,  and  ordered  incorpo- 
rated in  the  minutes  of  this  Board  with  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  machines 
at  said  price,  $942,500  and  that  said  contract  shall  be  ap- 
proved by  the  Countv  Judge  of  Cook  County,'  and  so 
forth." 


64  Expert's  Report  on  Empire  Voting  Machine. 

416  One  reason  for  deciding  on  the  Empire  machine  was 
that  the  firm  was  a  responsible  firm. 

"Q.  To  shorten  the  matter,  I  will  direct  your  atten- 
tion to  page  108  in  the  City  Club  Bulletin,  to  the  speech 
made  by  Shelby  M.  Singleton  of  the  City  Club.  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

"Q.  I  will  read  from  his  speech:  'The  report  says:. 
The  four  general  requirements  relate  probably  to  the 
adaptability  of  voting  machines  in  general  to  the  prac- 
tical requirements  of  elections  in  Chicago,  among  which 
are  the  following: 

"  '1.     Convenient  form — ' 

"Q.    That  is  the  report  of  your  expert,  isn't  it,  that  he 

417  is  speaking  about?    A.    I  think  so. 

"Mr.  Deneen  (reading  from  page  118).  It  is  as  fol- 
lows:    '1st:     Convenient  form. 

"  '2nd:  Convenient  design  for  keyboard  and  counter 
mechanism  for  simple,  easy,  rapid  and  positive  voting. 

"  '3rd:  Provision  for  prescribed  and  limited  number 
of  inspections  of  counters  by  the  election  judges  before 
and  after  hours  of  voting. 

"  '4th:  Proof  against  fraud  by  custodians,  judges  or 
voters.'  " 

Mr.  Deneen  continues  reading:  "  'After  setting  forth 
these  requirements  as  the  cardinal  tests  of  any  machine 
the  experts,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  negatived  to  a  large  de- 
gree the  ability  of  the  Empire  machine  to  fulfill  them. 
For  instance,  the  report  shows  that  the  Empire  machine 
is  third  on  the  list  as  to  convenience  of  form  and  weight 
for  transporting;  two  of  the  machines  are  lighter  and 
therefore  easier  to  handle  and  transport. 

418  "  'In  regard  to  convenient  design  of  keyboard,  coun- 
ter mechanism,  for  simple,  easy,  rapid  and  positive 
voting,  the  report  says  in  part:  "because  of  the  absence 
of  a  party  lever  which  in  other  machines  operates  each 
of  the  individual  keys  of  that  party,  split  voting  by  the 
Empire  must  be  done  by  pulling  down  individually  the 
keys  which  represent  the  candidates  to  be  voted  for  and 
this  on  a  70-key  board  will  scarcely  be  done  within  the 
one  minute's  time  permitted  to  each  voter  in  the  voting 
booth."  In  regard  to  the  third  test  the  report  says  in 
part:  "as  in  the  case  of  the  Triumph,  the  Empire  has 
no  provision  to  restrict  the  number  of  inspections  or  the 


Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor.  65 

number  of  times  which  the  judges  of  election  may  have 
access  to  the  counters."  '  " 

"'In  regard  to  the  4th  test,  viz:  that  the  machine 
should  be  proof  against  fraud  by  custodians,  judges  or 
voters,  the  report  sets  forth  that  the  Empire  machine 
"leaves  that  point  unguarded  to  a  certain  extent,  since 
there  is  a  possibility  of  the  'wrong  setting  of  coun- 
ters' ";  and  the  report  sets  forth  further  that  'the  dan- 
ger of  fraud  by  custodians  is  not  wholly  obviated  since 
fraud  is  possible  in  the  use  of  the  Empire  machine  by 
disconnecting  the  actuating  mechanism  from  one  or  more 
of  the  keys.' 

"  'The  machine — the  report  does  not  touch  on  the 
question  of  whether  the  machine  had  been  tested  in  re- 
gard to  its  adaptability  for  primaries.'  " 

419  The  Avitness  heard  these  matters  at  the  City  Club 
before  he  signed  the  contract. 

"Q.  What  consideration  did  you  give  them?  A. 
That  was  considered  when  the  reports  of  the  experts 
were  first  made." 

"As  to  form  and  size  we  had  proven  in  the  city  of 
Chicago  that  it  could  easily  be  moved  without  any  dan- 
ger or  trouble ;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  had  brought  a  ma- 
chine up  into  the  City  Club,  the  second  floor,  in  an  ordi- 
nary elevator.  Machines  weighing  1400  pounds  had  been 
used  in  Indianapolis  for  11  years." 

420  In  regard  to  voting  a  split  ticket  the  witness  had  ex- 
pressed the  idea  that  a  party  lever  is  a  great  disadvan- 
tage. The  experts'  report  show  it  necessitates  a  pull 
from  25  to  75  nounds.  A  voter  may  only  half  operate 
it  thinking  he  had  fully  done  so  when  he  had  not.  In  the 
experts'  report  it  is  said  that  the  Empire  machine,  in 
the  absence  of  a  partv-lever.  would  require  a  few  sec- 
onds more  time,  but  +1^ov  riid  not  regard  this  as  an  im- 
portant point,  but  think  it  should  be  brought  to  the 
Election  Commissioners'  attention. 

421  A  voter  who  would  take  two  or  three  minutes  on  the 
outside  to  post  himself  before  going  into  the  machine, 
could  vote  on  the  machine  within  one  minute. 

Like  the  Triumph,  the  Empire  machine  had  no  pro- 
vision to  restrict  the  number  of  inspections  or  the  num- 
.  ber  of  times  when  the  judares  of  election  might  have 
access  to  the  counters.     T^is   question  was   discussed 
with  voting  machine  men  and  Mr.  Kellermann  and  it 


66  Requirements  of  Voting  Machine  Law. 

was  decided  that  it  was  not  a  good  thing  to  restrict 
the  number.  Witness  thinks  the  machine  is  so  con- 
structed that  the  judges  cannot  do  anything  with  it  to 
eiTectuate  a  fraud. 

422  And  it  would  be  a  great  advantage  to  be  able  to  go 
into  the  back  of  the  machine  to  decide  a  dispute  as  to 
the  proper  reading  of  the  counters. 

The  custodian  might  disconnect  the  actuating  mechan- 
ism so  that  the  key  would  not  work,  but  the  witness 
couldn't  see  but  that  he  would  be  instantly  detected  and 
face  the  penitentiary  under  the  law. 

423  Besides  the  Election  Commissioners  took  care  that 
the  assembling  of  the  machine  is  properly  done  under 
the  greatest  possible  security. 

424  Three  distinct  inspections  are  made  by  different  men 
who  make  affidavits  which  are  filed  separately  and  witness 
does  not  regard  this  as  a  valid  objection. 

Taking  the  evidence  from  communities    which    have 
used  voting  machines,  the  records  show  that  voting  ma- 
chines prevent  and  eliminate  fraud. 
423      "Mr.  Deneen.   (Eeading    from    the    voting    machine 
law  quoted  in  the  copy  of  resolutions,  page  3,  line  67:) 

425  "That  the  machine  is  provided  with  a  lock  or  locks 
by  the  use  of  which  any  movement  of  the  voting  or  reg- 
istering mechanism  is  absolutely  prevented  so  that  it 
cannot  be  tampered  with  or  manipulated  for  any  fraudu- 
lent purpose. 

426  "Mr.  Deneen.  (Reading)  Line  70  of  resolutions.  The 
voting  machine  is  susceptible  to  being  closed  during  thi^ 
progress  of  voting  so  that  no  person  can  see  or  know 
the  number  of  votes  registered  for  any  candidate." 

427  The  witness  says  that  the  unlimited  inspections  he  re- 
ferred to  as  desirable  were  those  taken  after  the  elec- 
tion was  over. 

The  mechanism  of  the  machine  can  be  opened  during 
voting  for  repair  purposes. 

428  Through  collusion  of  all  judges  and  clerks  in  the  poll- 
ing place  the  machine  might  be  examined  during  the 
progress  of  voting  to  learn  how  candidates  stood,  but  it 
would  require  the  connivance  of  the  entire  polling 
officers. 

As  to  form  and  weight,  the  machine  weighs  950  net, 
1120  pounds  in  a  bulk. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor,  67 

Witness  has  no  knowledge  how  many  times  the  ma- 
chine must  be  handled  in  preparation  for  use  at  election. 
429  The  Chairman  announces  the  presence  of  Miss  John- 
son and  asks  if  counsel  care  to  use  her  as  a  witness. 

"Mr.  Deneen  (to  the  witness).  Q.  Do  you  and  Mr. 
Czarnecki  agree  in  these  matters? 

The  Witness.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  occasion 
for  any  further  disputation,  Governor.  I  am  willing  to 
say  that  that  testimony  furnished  the  committee  is  sub- 
stantially correct,  but  as  to  all  the  other  facts,  I  mean 
little  items  that  I  cannot  remember,  it  may  be  correct, 
I  do  not  know,  I  would  not  say. 

Mr.  McEwen.  You  mean  the  record  as  furnished 
rather  than  the  word  testimony  which  you  said. 

The  Witness.     The  minutes. 

Me.  McEwen.  I  will  say  in  behalf  of  the  interests  I 
represent,  I  do  not  intend  to  take  any  dififerent  position 
than  as  stated  here  by  Dr.  Taylor,  and  I  presume  the 
stenographer  might  say  everybody  checked  up  the  min- 
utes and  added  to  it.  I  think  it  will  show  that  Mr.  Czar- 
necki did  and  probably  Dr.  Taylor  did  and  that  is  my 
understanding. 

Mr.  Deneen.  But,  mind  me,  when  it  was  all  done  they 
all  agreed  to  the  minutes  as  being  substantially  the  min- 
utes of  the  Board. 

Mh.  McEwen.  On  all  the  essentials  that  would  natu- 
rally form  a  part  of  the  record,  the  proceedings,  they 
were  acouiesced  in  and  considered  as  the  record. 

Mr.  Mitchell.  The  statement  incorporated  in  the 
minutes  by  Mr.  Czarnecki  that  the  minutes  were  read 
and  approved  is  not  true. 


Volume  VI. 

Afternoon   Session. 

Thursday,  July  24,  1913. 

433  Dr.  Howard  S.  Taylor  : 

"Communication  of  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Co. 
"The  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company,  an  Ohio 
corporation,  having  its  headquarters  at  Toledo,  Ohio, 
respectfully  presented  this  its  protest  and  petition  to 
the  Board  of  Election   Commissioners   of  the   City   of 


68  Protest  of  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Co. 

Chicago,  Cook  County,  Illinois,  in  relation  to  the  specifi- 
cations for  the  furnishing  of  voting  machines  and  the 
invitation  of  sealed  bids  thereunder,  which  specifications 
have  been  adopted  and  bids  invited  by  the  said  Board  on 
or  about  April  27th,  A.  D.  1911. 

' '  1st :  The  specifications  require  bidders  to  specify  that 
they  have  at  least  a  voting  machine  on  exhibition  meet- 
ing the  requirements  of  the  Illinois  Election  Law  and 
the  Illinois  Voting  Machine  Law,  and  yet  such  specifica- 
tions permit  for  the  purpose  of  exhibition  a  machine 
with  a  number  of  voting  keys  and  party  columns  in- 
adequate for  the  requirements  of  the  elections  held  under 
their  jurisdiction  and  inadequate  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  specifications  describing  voting  machines 
which  the  "Board  has  authority  in  law  to  purchase,  or 
which  as  indicated  under  said  specifications  it  proposes 
or  intends  or  purchase. 

"2nd:  The  number  and  date  set  forth  in  the  specifica- 
tions for  the  furnishing,  delivery  and  equipment  of  the 
voting  machines  set  forth  in  (1)  are  unreasonably  im- 
possible of  fulfillment  as  your  petitioner  is  informed 
and  believes  by  any  existing  owner  or  manufacturer  of 
voting  machines  in  the  United  States  of  America.  No 
possible  competent  bidder  is  known  to  your  petitioner 
who  would  dare  to  make  bids  under  the  specifications  as 
to  the  installments  for  delivery  above  referred  to,  xm- 
less  such  bidder  felt  that  grounds  existed  for  belief  that 
an  extension  of  time  would  be  granted. 

"3rd:  (n)  of  the  specifications  taken  in  connection 
with  the  terms  of  (a)  of  the  specifications  for  the  ex- 
hibition of  a  machine  adequate  for  the  desired  purposes 
is  so  drawn  as  to  operate  to  the  material  disadvantage 
of  intending  bidders  who  now  possess,  ready  for  the 
purposes  of  exhibition  machines  suitable  for  purchase 
under  the  specifications  in  the  contract,  and  to  work  to 
the  material  advantage,  by  allowing  a  postponement  as 
to  the  date  of  the  execution. of  the  contract,  in  favor  of 
intending  bidders  who  may  possess  and  exhibit  ma- 
chines which  do  not  comply  with  the  specifications  cov- 
ering machines  which  may  be  purchased. 

"4th:  Your  protestant  and  petitioner  shows  that 
(6th)  of  the  specifications  the  Board  requires  an  indef- 
inite and  therefore  unreasonable  continuing  further  op- 
tion on  its  behalf,  but  with  no  obligation  on  its  part  to 


Testimoni/  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  69 

purchase  additional  machines  at  a  price  no  higher  than 
named  in  the  original  contract.  This  disregards  the 
reasonably  anticipated  variations  in  the  prices  of  labor 
and  material  and  furnishes  no  limit  except  the  life  of 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  only,  for  the 
termination  of  this  continuing  obligation  on  the  bidder, 

"5th:  Your  protestant  shows  that  the  amount  of  the 
check  required  to  accompany  each  bid  is  unreasonably 
large,  being  substantially  $60,000  and  that  the  require- 
ment that  said  check  shall  not  be  returned  to  the  suc- 
cessful bidder  until  the  contract  has  been  executed  a 
bond  of  $250,000  guaranteeing  the  faithful  performance 
of  the  contract  has  been  furnished,  is  unreasonable  be- 
cause the  specifications  are  so  drawn  that  it  is  entirely 
with  the  power  and  right  of  the  Board  to  accelerate  or 
delay  the  signing  of  the  contract  with  the  successful 
bidder.  Your  petitioner  if  a  bidder  has  no  means  of 
ascertaining  whether  the  signing  of  the  contract  would 
be  so  delayed  by  the  Board  as  to  afford  sufficient  time 
to  permit  compliance  with  the  delivery,  installment  quan- 
tities and  dates  set  forth  in  (k)  of  the  specifications^  or 
whether  the  contract  would  be  signed  at  a  date  making 
it  impossible  for  any  possible  bidder  known  to  your 
petitioner  to  comply  therewith  if  the  date  of  the  signing 
of  such  contract  should  be  as  early  a  date  as  is  legally 
possible  under  the  specifications  as  framed. 

"For  the  reasons  above  stated  your  petitioner  re- 
spectfully protests  against  said  specifications  and  peti- 
tions the  Board  to  reasonably  so  amend  the  same  as  to 
permit  your  petitioner  with  propriety  and  reasonable 
business  safety  and  intention  of  perfoi-mance  to  submit 
bids  and  to  submit  a  sample  of  the  machine  manufac- 
tured by  your  petitioner.  "Which  your  petitioner  affirms 
will  fully  and  completely  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the 
laws  of  Illinois  and  any  specifications  prepared  in  com- 
pliance wath  the  letter  and  spirit  thereof,  and  that  the 
time  for  the  filing  of  the  bids  be  extended  until  the  first 
day  of  July,  A.  D.  1911.  Your  petitioner  is  not  fully 
informed  as  to  the  law,  but  inasmuch  as  your  Board  has 
already  amended  the  specifications  and  already  extended 
the  time,  your  petitioner  assumes  that  your  Board  has 
authority  to  heed  the  protest  and  grant  the  petition  of 
your  petitioner. 

"WiNSLOw  VoTixG  Machine  Company, 

By  (Signed)  L.  E.  Winslow,  Mgr." 


70  Protests  Placed  on  File. 

437  "The  witness  remembers  these  protests.  The  witness 
thinks  Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  to  give  consider- 
ation to  the  protest  and  that  the  witness  moved  to  place 
it  on  file. 

439  "After  hearing  read  the  requirements  of  specifications 
as  to  delivery  of  machines  the  witness  say:  'My  reply  is 
that  I  do  not  think  that  we  formally  altered  the  "tests  "and 
I  do  not  know  that  we  altered  it  at  all.'  " 

After  receiving  the  Winslow  protest  Mr.  Winslow  was 
permitted  to  come  in  with  a  smaller  number  of  machines 
however.  Witness  does  not  think  that  any  bidder  had 
advance  information  that  the  Kleetion  Commissioners 
would  alter  the  specifications,  and  the  Commissioners  had 
not  discussed  with  any  bidder  the  subject  of  altering  the 
specifications  after  letting  the  contract,  or  that  the  con- 
ditions as  to  the  time  of  delivery  would  be  changed. 

440  The  contract  does  not  follow  the  specifications  as  to 
delivery. 

Mr.  Deneen'.  Q.  You  extended  the  time  to  fifteen 
months  rather  than  nine  months  after  you  had  awarded 
the  contract,  after  you  had  decided  to  award  it? 

A.  I  do  not  recall  that,  it  is  a  total  of  twenty-six 
months. 

441  Witness  does  not  recall  why  the  time  was  extended.  It 
occurs  to  him  that  if  no  company  could  have  complied 
with  the  contract  then  no  company  was  injured. 

Witness  thinks  that  the  contract  was  prepared  by  the 
attorney  and  the  Chief  Clerk;  perhaps  the  attorney  of 
the  Empire  Company.  It  was  brought  in  and  his  only 
recollection  of  it  is  that  complete  delivery  was  to  be  ac- 
complished in  twenty-six  months.  "I  thought  that  the 
permanent  installment  of  voting  machines  would  prob- 
ably be  accomplished  within  Judge  Owen's  time,  his  term. 

Mr.  Deneen.  The  provisions  of  the  specifications  were 
altered.  Were  those  contained  in  the  copies  sent  out  to 
the  machine  companies  generally. 

The  witness  thinks  that  the  Commission  was  not  bound 
by  the  specifications  on  this  point,  that  having  selected  a 
machine  they  could  make  whatever  contract  seemed  best. 
443  The  specifications  is  a  sort  of  an  invitation  to  "come 
and  see  how  nearly  you  can  get  to  this,  and  if  you  can  get 
within  that  bound,  or  approximately,  we  will  then  con- 
sider a  contract,  if  yours  is  the  goods,  if  yours  is  the 
selected  machine."    "That  is  what  I  thought  about  it." 

The  witness  regarded  the  specifications  as  more  than  a 


Protest  of  Ergy  Register  Company.  71 

matter  of  form,  but  not  binding  upon  the  Commissioners 
as  to  each  proposition. 

444  The  specifications  were  made  a  part  of  the  contract. 
The  witness  had  not  noticed  that. 

"  Ml-. -Deneen.  The  contract  states  that  the  specifica- 
tions are  attached  hereto  and  that  tliere  is  no  provision 
to  make  them  a  part  of  the  contract. ' ' 

445  Mr.  Deneen  reads  the  following  provision  of  the  con- 
tract: "Whereas,  the  'Board'  issued  specifications  for 
the  furnishing  of  voting  machines  to  said  'Board'  which 
said  specifications  bear  date  April  27,  1911,  and  a  cop}-  of 
which  specifications  is  hereto  attached  and  marked  'Ex- 
hibit A,  and' " 

' '  The  Witness.    That  is  correct,  yes. ' ' 

"From  the  Ergy  Eegister  Company,  Dayton,  Ohio,  May 
25th,  1911,  from  Leopold  Rauh,  President,  addressed  to 
Mr.  Wm.  H.  Stuart,  Chief  Clerk,  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners of  Chicago,  Ills.,  which  is  as  follows:  Dear 
Sir:  After  my  conversation  with  you  with  regard  to 
voting  machines  and  upon  my  return  home  I  received 
your  valued  favor  of  the  20th  inst.,  stating  that  bids  for 
voting  machines  will  be  opened  tomorrow.  We  have  al- 
ready stated  to  you  that  we  shall  not  be  in  position  to  file 
a  bid  of  this  kind  since  we  have  just  completed  our  funda- 
mental machine  and  this  machine  we  shall  have  on  exhibi- 
tion at  the  Chicago  Municipal  Exposition  to  be  held  in 
your  Auditorium  September  next. 

You  can  readily  understand  that  in  the  first  place  it 
447  would  have  been  quite  expensive  to  ship  our  machine  to 
Cliicago  at  this  time  and  that  it  would  avail  of  nothing 
else  but  to  demonstrate,  since  we  are  not  ready  to  receive 
any  orders  and  it  will  take  considerable  time  to  prepare 
for  manufacturing  as  well  as  organization.  I  have  no- 
ticed in  the  lobby  of  your  office  that  perhaps  only  the 
'Triumph,  the  Empire  and  the  Winslow'  will  be  on  ex- 
hibition. The  Empire  being  the  oldest-  Company  in  the 
field  will  be  undoubtedly  the  most  aggressively  situated 
at  this  time.  In  reviewing  your  conditions  as  to  what 
your  requirements  are,  I  will  not  go  at  length  into  this 
matter  and  would  simply  suggest  this,  that  if  it  is  within 
your  province  to  inform  me  who  your  Board  of  Mechani- 
cal Experts  are  that  will  go  into  an  examination  of  the 
machines  that  will  be  before  them,  I  shall  be  very  glad  to 
avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  of  laying  all  the  facts 


72  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 

pertaining  to  our  machine  before. them,  and  I  assure  you 
that  we  can  demonstrate  most  important  points  in  all  of 
the  arrangements  that  you  are  requiring,  barring  none — 
that  we  can  furnish  a  machine  that  is  lighter  and  smaller 
than  the  ones  that  are  likely  to  be  on  exhibit,  since  all  the 
countei-meehanism  of  our  machine  is  semi-rotary  and 
each  party  column  can  be  readily  removed  for  storing 
away,  thus  we  have  what  no  one  else  has,  a  sO-called  K.  D. 
voting  machine.  Of  course,  all  this  is  mechanical  and 
can  be  best  appreciated  by  expert  mechanics.  The  ma- 
chine has  been  built  in  the  shops  of  the  Ergy  Eegister 
Company  but  it  is  my  own  property.  The  experiments 
have  been  going  on  for  almost  the  past  ten  years  and  the 
invention  is  covered  by  patents  that  have  gone  to  issue 
and  a  number  of  patents  that  are  now  pending.  We  have 
a  great  number  of  security  features  connected  with  our 
machine,  such  as  sealing  the  machine  when  the  election  is 
over,  for  taking  an  impression  of  the  counters  onto  a  tally 
sheet  at  the  opening  of  the  booth,  whereon  we  show  that 
all  the  counters  have  been  at  zero  and  for  taking  this 
same  tally  sheet  and  showing  thereon  in  each  column  the 
standing  of  the  voting  counters  at  the  close  of  the  election 
so  that  an  exact  audit  and  report  is  had  very  quickly. 

Another  very  important  feature  that  I  might  enumerate 
is  that  we  set  all  our  counters  at  zero  by  and  in  a  single 
operation  for  each  party  column  so  that  if  there  are  ten 
political  parties  we  have  simpy  ten  operations  to  per- 
form to  turn  all  of  the  counters  in  the  machine  to  zero. 
Everything  in  our  machine  is  new  and  novel.  It  has  been 
so  constraeted  on  independent  lines  and  our  inventor  has 
been  original  and  has  not  endeavored  to  copy  in  the  in- 
ternal working  arrangements.  The  outer  constructions 
of  course  will  not  differ  very  much  from  any  other  make 
of  machines.  Much  thought  has  been  given  to  building 
the  machine  'fool'  and  'villain'  proof,  and  the  matter 
of  adjusting  the  machine  to  the  various  demands  of  the 
tickets  nominated"  by  political  parties  has  also  been  taken 
care  of  so  that  it  will  not  require  any  one  above  ordinary 
knowledge  to  set  the  machine  to  the  requirements.  Our 
group  voting  or  limiting  device  is  one  of  the  simplest 
imaginable  and  the  machine  can  be  set  to  conform  to  the 
ticket  of  any  nomination  as  quickly  and  as  simply  as  one 
would  set  the  hands  of  a  clock  or  watch  and  the  capacity 
is,  not  only  almost  unlimited,  but  free  of  any  lost  motion 


Protest  of  American  Voting  Machine  Co.  73 

or  wear.  I  am  not  writing  this  letter  to  you  in  order  to 
'knock'  any  other  machine  that  may  be  before  you  but  am 
writing  you  to  simply  keep  you  informed  of  what  will  be 
on  the  market.  My  Company  has  not  been  financed  yet 
and  it  will  be  perhaps  a  year  before  we  will  arrive  at  a 
manufacturing  basis.  Voting  machines  are  first  class 
things  and  there  are  some  on  the  market  now  that  have 
very  good  features.  No  one  company  will  be  able  to 
furnish  all  the  machines  that  will  be  needed  over  this 
broad  land  before  very  long,  consequently  there  is  room 
for  all  of  us.  Thanking  you  for  courtesies  shown  me 
while  at  Chicago  and  trusting  that  you  will  permit  me  to 
keep  in  touch  with  you  on  this  entire  proposition,  I  re- 
main, yours  very  truly, 

Leopold  Batjh." 
451      Witness  thinks  the  letter  just  read  was  received  and 
filed,  probably.    "I  do  not  recall." 

"Mr.  Deneen.  It  was  not  given  any  consideration  by 
the  Board? 

' '  The  WiTOEss.    No,  I  think  not. ' ' 

"Also  the  following  letter  from  the  American  Voting 
Machine  Company  of  Boston,  Mass.,  dated  May  18th, 
1911,  addressed  to  the  Honorable  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners of  Chicago,  Illinois: 

"Gentuemen  :  In  reply  to  your  night  message  of  May 
17th  in  which  you  suggest  that  we  submit  an  informal 
proposition  in  reference  to  our  voting  machines  to  your 
Board,  after  which  you  would  pass  upon  our  requests  that 
the  time  for  submitting  our  bid  has  been  extended  to 
June  20th,  we  respectfully  submit  to  your  Honorable 
Board  the  following: 

"We  can  furnish  your  city  with  voting  machines  as  per 
specifications  and  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  voting 
machine  law  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  measuring  6'  2"  in 
height,  18"  in  width  and  about  12'  in  length  and  weighing 
about  800  pounds,  f.  o.  b.  Chicago  at  a  price  of  |700  each 
from  which  totals  will  have  to  be  read  and  $780  per  ma- 
chine equipped  with  printing  registers  together  with 
printing  devices.  This  estimate  is  approximate  and 
may  be  |50  more  or  less.  If  the  time  for  our  bid  in  ex- 
tended to  June  30th,  we  will  be  able  to  construct  a  ma- 
chine with  nine  party  columns  and  seventy  keys  which 
will  meet  with  all  the  requirements  and  be  able  to  give 


74  Protest  of  Caulkins  Voting  Machine  Co. 

you  the  exact  cost.    We  trust  that  your  Board  will  take 
favorable  action  in  behalf  of  our  request,  we  remain, 
Yours  very  truly, 

American  Voting  Machine  Co. 
F.  E.  NicKBi^." 
454      The  witness  thinks  that  likely  he  moved  to  place  the 
letter  on  file. 

Witness  cannot  state  whether  it  received  consideration 
by  the  Board  or  whether  it  was  simply  an  open  discus- 
sion. Witness  supposed  that  the  American  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company  had  been  in  the  habit  of  asking  for  an 
extension  and  that  there  were  records  of  their  asking  ex- 
tension on  the  old  minutes;  that  they  were  apparently 
never  getting  ready  to  get  into  the  contest.  "Now,  I  am 
not  sure,  as  I  say,  that  that  was  talked  about  in  the  open 
Board  when  we  considered,  and  I  would  not  say  it  was 
talked  of  officially.  I  cannot  remember  whether  it  was 
talked  over  between  me  and  any  member  of  the  Commis- 
sion, and  will  not  say  that  the  American  Voting  Machine 
'Company  had  been  in  the  habit  of  asking  delays  of  pre- 
vious Board." 

Also  the  following  letter  from  the  Caulkins  Voting  Ma- 
chine Co.,  to  the  Honorable  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners, Chicago,  Ills.,  dated  Mav  25th,  1911,  on  the  letter- 
head of  Erik  L.  Krag,  1041  First  National  Bank  Build- 
ing, Chicago. 

"Honored  and  dear  Sir: — I  regret  that  I  am  unable  at 
the  present  time  to  comply  with  all  the  demands  of  your 
specifications  for  bids  for  voting  machines.  I  have  ex- 
hibited a  Caulkins  Voting  Machine  with  your  Honorable 
Board,  which,  while  not  entirely  complete,  beyond  doubt 
will  clearly  demonstrate  its  many  advantages  to  you. 
This  is  the  only  machine  which  can  absolutely  guard 
against  fraudulent  manipulation  of  counters  and  mechan- 
ism. It  is  the  only  machine  which  will  print,  in  one  min- 
ute, the  totals  for  every  candidate,  for  every  straight 
ticket  and  of  all  cast  votes,  for  each  office,  together  with 
the  totals  of  all  the  totals  in  each  party,  leaving  the  only 
thing  for  the  judges  to  do — sign  their  names. 

"A  machine  of  the  capacity  required  for  Chicago  will 
weigh,  complete,  in  shipping  case,  about  200  pounds  and 
would  be  34^"  long,  23"  high  and  12"  deep.  If  you  are 
favorably  impressed  with  this    statement,  I   should  be 


Protest  of  American  Voting  Machine  Co.  75 

pleased  to  give  you  more  detailed  information.    I  beg  to 
remain,  Yours  very  truly, 

Ekik  L.  Krag." 
Witness  thinks  this  letter  also  was  filed. 

Also  the  following  letter  from  the  American  Voting 
Machine  Company,  of  Wooster,  Ohio,  dated  May  19th, 
1911,  addressed  to  Mr.  W.  H.  Stuart,  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  city  of  Chicago,  Ills., 
"My  dear  Sir:  We  have  been  making  every  effort  pos- 
sible to  complete  a  machine  for  exhibition  before  your 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  under  your  specifica- 
tions, dated  April  27th,  1911.  We  regret  to  say  that  we 
cannot  complete  this  machine  by  the  22d  of  May,  1911. 
We  commenced  to  build  this  machine  to  meet  your  re- 
quirements as  given  to  Judge  H.  B.  Swartz  and  regret 
that  we  will  be  unable  to  complete  it  by  the  22d  of  May, 
1911,  We  desire  to  say,  however,  that  we  can  comply  with 
each  and  every  requirement  under  your  specifications  for 
a  voting  machine.  We  believe  that  we  have  built  a  ma- 
chine, which  can  comply  with  your  requirement,  and  we 
trust  that  some  later  date  will  be  fixed  by  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  for  the  receiving  of  bids  and  ex- 
hibition of  machines.  It  will  take  us  probably  30  days  to 
complete  our  machine  and  secure  the  approval  of  it  by  the 
State  officers  of  Illinois,  and  inasmuch  as  you  desire  to 
purchase  a  large  number  of  machines,  we  feel  it  to  be  an 
injustice  to  let  this  contract  without  seeing  our  machine, 
which  is  built  on  an  entirely  ditferent  principle  than  any 
other  voting  machine  now  built.  AVe  believe  this  machine, 
on  account  of  the  new  parts  needed  in  its  construction, 
and  the  simplicity  of  its  operation,  will  take  a  lead  over 
all  the  other  voting  machines  now  on  the  market. 

"On  this  macliine  it  is  possible  to  do  everything  that  is 
possible  to  do  under  the  Australian  Ballot  Law  of  Illi- 
nois, with  the  paper  ballot  and  the  pencil.  There  is  no 
requirement  of  this  law  which  we  cannot  meet  with  this 
machine.  Is  it  not  possible  to  arrange  some  time  later 
when  our  machine  can  be  exhibited  before  your  Board 
and  you  can  be  made  familiar  with  its  operation?  We 
have  done  everything  possible  to  be  ready  by  the  22d  of 
May  and  find  that  we  are  not  able  to  complete  this  ma- 
chine. Very  truly. 

The  American  Voting  Machine  Co., 

H.  H.  Zeigler, 

Sec'y." 


76  Protests  Placed  on  File. 

Witness  thinks  this  letter  was  also  probably  placed  on 
file. 

458  The  bids  were  opened  June  1st.  The  four  companies 
bidding  were  the  Empire,  Triumph,  Winslow  and  Inter- 
national. 

The  experts  were  appointed  on  June  3d,  selected  by 

459  Judge  Owens.  The  experts  were  Messrs.  Abbottt,  Cham- 
berlain and  Wooley.  The  witness  did  not  know  them  at 
that  time. 

"Michigan  City,  Ind.,  June  15th,  1911. 
Hon.  Chas.  H.  Kellerinann,  Cluiirman, 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 
City  Hall,  Chicago. 
Dear  Sir: — 

"I  am  submitting  to  you  for  presentation  to  the  Board 
the  status  of  my  eighteen  j'ears'  work  to  produce  a  me- 
chanical device  for  recording  and  counting  votes  at  our 
popular  elections. 

"First :  It  is  impossible  to  state  fully,  in  any  single  pa- 
per that  you  would  have  the  patience  to  wade  through, 
what  ought  to  be  given  on  this  subject.  And  many  of  my 
assertions  herein  will  be  hardly  believable  by  your  Board 
without  a  fuller  setting  forth  than  can  be  made  by  writ- 
ing. If,  however,  this  letter  creates  enough  interest  to 
warrant  you  in  calling  for  me  I  will  at  any  time  gladly 
come  before  the  Board  for  questioning.  And  while  wish- 
ing to  be  decently  modest  and  certainly  not  to  stand  in 
the  light  of  a  'knocker'  or  'butter  in',  yet  18  years  of  the 
hardest  study,  work  and  careful  observation  of  what  has 
been  going  on  in  thi«  field,  ought  to  enable  me  to  speak 
with  some  weight. 

"After  several  years'  work  devising  and  building  a 
type  similar  to  those  you  are  now  examining,  I  abandoned 
the  so-called  'voting  machine'  idea  which  does  not  permit 
several  electors  in  the  same  voting  precinct  to  be  prepar- 
ing their  ballots  at  one  and  the  same  time. 

"The  reason  is  obvious. 

"After  long  study  and  observation  of  actual  conditions 
during  elections,  together  with  a  careful  comparison  of  re- 
quirements in  ditferent  states,  I  set  myself  the  task  four- 
teen years  ago  to  devise  a  mechanism  for  recording  and 
counting  votes  in  our  popular  elections  with  the  following 
requirements: 

'1.    It  must  be  very  simple,  small  and  light. 


n- 


Letter  of  Eugene  Gregory — Filed.  77 

"2.  Must  have  capacity  to  record  a  minimum  of  one 
thousand  names  and  fifty  questions  of  public  policy, 
amendments,  etc.,  or  ten  full  tickets  of  one  hundred  names 
each,  besides  all  possible  'yes'  and  'no'  or  'for'  and 
'against'  questions. 

"It  must,  without  extra  cost,  count  two  thousand  votes. 

"To  count  two  thousand  votes  in  a  ten-hour  day  there 
would  be  required  at  least  ten  marking  devices  and  booths 
with  one  counting  machine  in  each  voting  precinct,  thus 
allowing  at  crowded  hours  as  high  as  ten  voters  to  be  pre- 
paring their  tickets  at  the  same  time. 

"3.  Must  not  allow  even  an  official  to  regulate  or  even 
touch  by  any  means  short  of  mutilation  a  single  counter 
or  a  single  piece  that  actuates  the  counter.  All  'setting' 
must  be  done  from  the  outside  by  a  single  stroke  of  the 
operating  mechanism. 

"4.  In  size  1  set  a  cubic  foot  and  weight  fifty  pounds 
and  have  been  able  to  save  a  good  margin. 

' '  To  accomplish  special  things  in  elections,  such  as  come 
up  in  Primary  balloting,  or  as  in  your  state,  vote  plump- 
ing there  must  be  no  special  attachments.  The  regular 
mechanism  must  do  the  Avork ;  and  the  simplest  directions 
must  be  plain  on  the  face  of  the  invention  so  that  any 
voter  with  or  without  mechanical  turn  of  mind  shall  see 
what  to  do  without  coming  from  his  booth. 

"5.  Xo  'expert  mechanic'  must  be  necessary  in  its  up- 
keep or  in  handling  and  placing  for  elections. 

"6.  The  total  cost  to  equip  a  first  class  City  should 
leave  something  in  that  City's  treasury. 

' '  Can  so  much  be  done  ? 

"It  is  done. 

"Within  six  weeks'  time  I  can  put  the  visual  evidence 
before  you. 

"Your  undemocratic  Illinois  feature  of  cumulative  vot- 
ing, together  with  the  recent  expansion  and  elaboration 
of  Primary  voting,  in  many  states,  have  been  a  serious 
hinderance  to  me  after  I  thought  I  was  done  with  this 
most  intricate  problem. 

"Thanking  you  for  the  privilege  of  presenting  this  to 
your  Honorable  Board  and  holding  myself  at  your  service, 
"Eespectfully, 

(Signed)    Eugene  Gregory." 
463      Witness  remembers  the  receipt  of  this  letter  and  thinks 
it  was  placed  on  file. 


78  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

Chicago,  III.,  June  19th,  1911. 
To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of 

the  City  of  Chicago. 
Gentlemen  : 
463-468     "Supplementary  to  our  printed  and  oral  arjmments, 
we  beg  leave  to  present  to  your  attention  herewith  a  num-. 
ber  of  statements  relative  to  the  International  voting  ma- 
chine. 

"It  will  be  as  much  to  our  advantage  as  to  yours,  to 
make  whatever  changes  are  desirable  to  our  machines, 
so  that  it  will  meet  in  every  particular  the  needs  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  as  you  see  it.  To  this  end  we  will  (a) 
move  the  public  counter  so  that  it  is  visible  from  the  back 
463  of  the  machine  and  can  thus  be  read  while  the  voter  is  in 
the  booths;  (b)  place  the  woman's  lockout  ballot  lever, 
on  the  back  of  the  machine,  outside  of  the  curtain,  (c) 
Build  six  or  more  primary  bars  in  each  machine  said  bars 
to  be  operated  from  the  rear  of  the  machine  and  outside 
of  the  curtain,  and  the  face  of  each  bar  to  be  sufficiently 
large  to  carry  a  party  appellation  which  may  be  readily 
distinguished  by  election  judge  or  by  a  watcher,  (d) 
Cover  the  face  of  the  ballot  with  celluloid,  which  will  pre- 
vent the  voter  from  marring  the  ballot  and  will  prevent 
the  placing  of  rubber  bands  on  the  lower  part  of  the  key. 
(e)  If  you  think  it  is  desirable,  we  will  put  a  tension 
on  the  party  bar  which  will  have  a  tendency  to  prevent  the 
withdrawal  of  the  keys  by  rubber  bands  placed  on  top. 

"Your  attention  is  respectfully  called  to  the  light  weight 
of  the  International  machine,  it  weighing  less  than  one 
pound  to  each  key  upon  the  face  of  the  machine;  and  to 
the  convenience  and  ease  with  which  the  machine  may  be 
set  up  ready  for  voting.  The  case  frame  of  our  machine, 
which  furnishes  the  working  support,  is  a  compact,  fabri- 
cated structure,  built  up  scientifically  so  as  to  withstand 
any  strain  that  may  be  put  upon  it. 

"There  is  no  maze  nor  mass  of  suspended  and  collapsi- 
ble parts  susceptible  to  every  jerk  or  jar. 

464  "The  International  machine  does,  we  believe,  every- 
thing that  any  other  voting  machine  does,  and  performs 
its  work  in  the  most  simple  and  natural  way  possible.    It 

465  is  a  machine  that  no  mechanic  will  have  to  touch  with  a 
tool,  a  machine  so  advanced  in  its  fundamental  features 
that  it  may  be  changed  to  receive  a  new  ballot  as  easily 
as  the  marginal  stops  may  be  changed  on  a  typewriter 


Letter  of  International  Voting  Machine  Co.  79 

machine.  The  fact  that  these  changes  must  be  made  for 
each  election,  or  on  an  average  of  four  times  a  year, 
should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  figuring  the  fixed 
costs  of  using  voting  machines. 

"The  International  machine  has  its  lock  on  its  face, 
directly  alongside  of  the  ballot,  most  convenient  for  the 
custodian.  He  sees  what  he  is  doing  all  the  time,  there 
is  no  guess  work  adjustment.  Every  piece  of  the  machine 
which  the  custodian  needs  to  see  is  get-at-able  in  an  easy 
and  natural  way.  Every  part  of  the  machine  is  thor- 
oughly tested  as  to  its  strength,  and  is  guaranteed.  There 
are  no  weak  parts.  All  movements  in  the  International 
Voting  Machine  are  positive  and  camactuated.  The  posi- 
tively engaged  register  is  a  fundamental  feature.  It  is 
absolutely  controlled,  inasmuch  as  the  key  which  operates 
the  register  travels  only  across  the  diameter  of  a  round 
hold  of  a  predetermined  correct  size,  thus  making  it  im- 

465  possible  to  count  more  than  one  vote. 

"The  irregvdar  vote  on  the  International  Machine 
wholly  meets  the  requirements  of  the  law.  Possibly  it  is 
not  ideal  but  we  believe  that  its  slight  disadvantages  are 
not  equal  to  the  disadvantages  of  the  bulky,  weighty  and 
doubtful  paper  roll. 

466  "The  International  is  an  all  machine  voting  device,  not 
half  man  and  half  machine.  It  prints  the  condition  of 
the  registers  in  the  morning  and  does  not  depend  upon 
the  sworn  statement  of  judges  and  clerks.  The  registers 
are  set  preferably  at  000,  but  wherever  they  are  set,  the 
machine  preserves  a  record  of  their  starting  points.  This 
print  together  with  the  print  taken  at  the  close  of  the 
polls  in  the  evening,  supplies  a  positively  correct  record 
of  the  number  of  votes  for  each  candidate,  and  for  and 
against  each  proposition,  during  the  voting  day,  thus  not 
depending  upon  the  fallible  human  record.  This  printed 
record  furnishes  wholly  dependable  evidence  in  the  event 
of  a  contest  and  will  practically  eliminate  court  proceed- 
ings. The  exhibition  of  a  ballot  with  both  morning  and 
evening  print  will  immediately  satisfy  judges  and  candi- 
dates.   It  will  be  as  final  as  a  court  decision  in  itself. 

"The  slow  progress  of  voting  machines  in  the  past  is 
due,  we  believe,  to  the  fact  that  none  of  these  machines 
has  printed  as  much  as  it  is  due  to  their  cumbersome  and 
general  unreliability.  It  is  argued  by  the  manufacturers 
of  nonprinting  machines  as  opposed  to  another  nonprint- 


80  Letter  Placed  on  File. 

ing  machine  that  the  latter  does  not  total  the  votes,  that 
the  individual  vote  must  be  added  to  the  party  vote  to 

467  secure  the  total.  In  other  words  that  it  does  not  do  what 
the  machine  is  primarily  intended  to  do — eliminate  cler- 
ical work.  This  is  all  right  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  the  argu- 
ment of  the  first  man  condemns  his  own  machine  and  en- 
dorses the  International  which  is  the  only  one  that  wholly 
eliminates  the  human  element  in  the  record  of  its  work. 

"The  one  hypothetical  argument  that  stands  against 
the  International  Voting  Machine  is  the  argument  rela- 
tive to  the  malicious  use  of  snow  or  water  brought  into 
the  booth  by  the  voters.  The  voter  who  comes  to  the  ma- 
chine with  malicious  intent,  and  who  is  willing  to  take  the 
chance  of  going  to  the  penitentiary  if  he  is  caught  in  the 
act,  can  destroy  any  voting  machine  that  has  ever  been 
made.  T'he  celluloid  sheet  over  the  face  of  the  ballot  will 
prevent  injurious  results  from  whatever  moisture  is  un- 
avoidably brought  into  the  booth. 

"We  believe  that  the  International  voting  machine  has 
reached  the  state  of  perfection  where  it  is  a  practical  de- 
vice, that  it  will  give  Chicago  better  election  results  than 
can  be  secured  by  the  use  of  any  other  machine  now  in 
existence,  or  by  the  use  of  the  paper  ballot.  The  use  of 
the  International  Machine  in  the  City  of  Chicago  would 
result  in  a  large  annual  saving,  and  would  reflect  great 
credit  upon  the  men  who  are  instrumental  in  bringing 
it  into  use.  AVe  maintain  that  a  voting  machine  with  700 
keys  on  the  face  and  which  weighs  only  600  pounds  is  as 
light  a  machine  as  is  practical  to  build.  Two  men  can 
handle  it  easily  and  no  machine  will  ever  be  built,  it  is 
our  opinion,  suitable  for  use  in  the  City  of  Chicago,  which 
can  be  handled  by  less  than  two  men. 

"We  submit  these  statements  in  this  form  that  they 
may  be  analyzed  by  you  at  your  convenience.     We  be- 
lieve that  they  will  receive  your  careful  consideration. 
"Yours  respectfully, 
' '  International,  Voting  Machine  Co.  ' ' 

468  Witness  remembers  the  letter  which  was  placed  on  file. 
Does  not  know  that  any  official  consideration  was  given 
to  it  nor  was  it  discussed  by  the  Board. 


» 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  81 

The  report  of  the  experts  W.  L.  Abbott,  Paul  M.  Cham- 
berlain, and  Wm.  W.  Wooley,  received  June  26th. 
"Honorable  John  E.  Owens, 

County  Judge,  County  Building, 
Chicago. 
Sir: 
469-480    Your  Commission  of  Experts,  appointed  to  advise 
you  as  to  the  actual  and  relative  merits  of  certain  voting 
machines  which  the  Board  of    Election    Commissioners 
have  received  proposals  for,  have  examined  the  machines 
submitted,  considered  the  practical  requirements  of  elec- 
tion conditions  and  herewith  submits  the  following  report : 

"The  problem  submitted  to  your  Commission  was 
broadly  outlined  as  follows : 

"1st:  Do  the  machines  fulfill  the  requirements  of  the 
State  law? 

"2nd:  What  are  the  materials  entering  into  the  con- 
struction of  the  machines,  and  are  the  materials  sufficiently 
good  to  meet  the  demands  made  on  the  machines? 

"3rd:    Are  the  machines  mechanically  correct? 
470      "4th:     Are  the  machines  equal  to  the  work  and  re- 
quirements of  the  election  conditions  of  Chicago? 

' '  The  first  general  requirement  is  detailed  in  the  State 
Law  relating  to  voting  machines. 

"The  second  general  requirement  relates  to  the  me- 
chanical strength  and  durability  of  the  device. 

"The  third  general  requirement  relates  to  the  mechan- 
ical accuracy  of  the  machine  in  performing  desired  opera- 
tions and  restricting  to  such  operations. 

"The  fourth  general  requirement  relates  broadly  to 
the  adaptability  of  voting  machines  in  general  to  the  prac- 
tical requirements  of  election  conditions  in  Chicago, 
among  which  are  the  following: 

"1.     Convenient  form  and  weight  for  transporting. 

"  2.  ■  Convenient  design  of  key-board  and  counter  mech- 
anism for  simple,  easy,  rapid  and  positive  voting. 

"3.  Provision  for  prescribed  and  limited  number  of 
inspection  of  counters  by  the  election  judges  before  and 
after  the  hours  of  voting. 

"4.  Proof  against  fraud  by  custodians,  judges  or 
voters.  Four  makes  of  machines  were  submitted  for  an 
inspection : — 

"Triumph  Voting  Machine,  manufactured  by  the 
Triumph  Voting  Machine  Company,  Pittsfield,  Mass. 


82  Report  of  Election  Commission's  Experts. 

471  "Empire  Voting-  Machine,  manufactured  by  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company,  Jamestown,  N.  Y. 

"International  Voting  Machine,  manufactured  by  the 
International  Voting  Macliine  Company,  Elgin,  Illinois. 

"Winslow  Voting  Machine,  manufactured  by  the  Wins- 
low  Voting  Machine  Co.,  Toledo,  Ohio." 

"Following  is  the  discussion  of  the  distinctive  features 
found  in  the  various  machines : — 

"Triumph  Voting  Machine. 

"This  machine  is  of  medium  weight,  is  packed  in  con 
venient  form  for  transportation,  it  fulfilled  all  of  the  con- 
ditions imposed  by  the  State  law,  is  made  of  suitable  and 
durable  material,  and  is  of  correct  mechanical  construc- 
tion. 

"The  commission,  however,  considers  it  deficient  in 
that  there  is  no  provision  for  limiting  the  number  of  times 
the  judges  may  obtain  access  to  the  counters.  It  is  also 
deficient  in  that  it  is  easily  possible  at  the  time  of  an  in- 
spection to  disconnect  an  individual  counter  or  counters 
from  the  party  lever  bar,  so  that  straight  ballots  cast  by 

472  the  party  lever  will  not  be  registered  by  the  counter  so 
disconnected.  The  resetting  and  releasing  levers  where 
understood,  are  useful  for  quickly  correcting  erroneous 
votes,  but  may  be  confusing  and  present  the  possibility 
of  voter  erasing  entire  vote.  The  machine  may  also  be 
made  to  give  a  false  registration  by  means  of  a  spring 
or  rubber  band  attached  to  the  voting  key.  Such  an  at- 
tempt at  fraud,  however,  would  be  so  apparent  that  it 
could  scarcely  fail  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  next 
voter. 

"Empire  Voting  Machine. 

"This  is  the  only  one  of  the  four  machines  submitted 
which  is  not  provided  with  a  party  lever.  The  machine 
fulfills  the  requirements  of  the  State  la.w,  is  very  well  con- 
structed of  suitable  and  durable  materials,  and  is  in  con- 
venient form  for  transijortation ;  but  is  somewhat  heavy, 
weighing  904  and  1150  lbs.  boxed  for  shipment. 

"Because  of  the  absence  of  the  party  lever,  which  in 
other  machines  operates  each  of  the  individual  keys  of 
that  part}',  split  voting  with  the  Empire  must  be  done 
by  pulling  down  individually  the  keys  which  represent  the 
candidates  to  be  voted  for,  and  this  on  a  70-key  board 
will  scarcely  be  done  within  one  minute's  time  per- 
mitted to  each  voter  in  the  voting  booth;  it  also  makes 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  83 

it  necessary  to  add  the  ballot  cast  on  the  party  key  to 
those  on  the  individual  keys.  These  disadvantages  ap- 
ply to  any  machine  which  has  a  party  key  instead  of  a 
party  lever.  The  advantages  of  the  party  key  on  the 
473  other  hand  are  simplicity  of  instruction  to  voter  and 
less  mechanical  complication. 

"As  in  the  case  of  the  Triumph,  the  Empire  has  no 
provision  to  restrict  the  number  of  inspections  or  the 
number  of  times  which  the  judges  of  election  may  have 
access  to  the  counter. 

"International  Voting  Machine. 

"This  machine  complies  with  the  requirements  of  the 
State  law,  is  well  built  of  strong  and  durable  materials, 
and  is  of  correct  mechanical  design.  Of  four  machines 
submitted,  this  one  is  the  lightest  in  weight,  the  sim- 
plest in  design,  and  is  the  only  one  from  which  printed 
records  of  the  counter  indication  may  be  taken. 

"The  commission,  however,  considers  the  machine  de-, 
ficient  in  the  following  points :  The  arrangement  of  the 
key-board  in  a  horizontal  rather  than  in  a  vertical  plane 
is  not  approved.  The  arrangement  of  the  printed  lines 
on  the  ticket  is  parallel  to  the  line  of  vision  and  the 
names  are,  therefore,  not  so  easily  read  as  if  they  were 
arranged  at  right  angles  to  the  line  of  vision.  The  move- 
ment of  the  voting  key  is  so  slight  that  there  is  not  a 
positive  indication  for  whom  the  ballot  is  cast.  The 
voting  by  a  party  lever  may  not  be  positive  when  the 

473  lever  is  not  moved  through  its  full  swing.  A  voter  pos- 
sessed of  a  key  might  open  the  machine  and  tamper 
with  the  counters  within  the  time  allowed  for  voting. 

474  "Winslow  Voting  Machine. 
"Complies  with  the  requirements  of  the  State  Law, 

and  is  properly  constructed  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
strength  and  durability.  Your  experts  find,  however, 
that  in  the  sample  submitted  the  actuating  mechanism 
of  a  number  of  counters  was  inoperative,  and  in  the 
opinion  of  your  commission  the  design  of  the  counter 
used  is  such  that  after  a  few  hours  it  may  be  expected 
that  one  or  more  counters  will  become  inoperative. 

"This  machine  is  provided  with  a  restrictive  device, 
but  in  the  sample  submitted  the  device  is  ineffective.  _  It 
would,  therefore,  be  possible,  in  spite  of  the  restrictive 
device,  for  a  woman  to  cast  a  full  party  ballot ;  also  on 
the  sample  submitted  there  was  no  check  on  the  roll  of 


84 


Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 


paper  which  is  provided  for  the  irregular  vote,  and  with- 
out such  a  check  voters  might  cast  several  ballots  for 
any  irregular  candidate. 

"As  the  weight  of  each  machine  is  1,290  lbs.  handling 

is  not  an  easy  matter.     The  keyboard  is  well  designed 

for  rapid  and  positive  voting,  but  the  amount  of  force 

required  to  pull  a  party  lever  (about  75  lbs.)  is  consid- 

474  ered  objectionable  and  excessive. 

"Below  in  tabular  form  appears  a  comparison  of  the 
principal  features  of  the  machines  examined. 


475      Item  Triumph        Empire 

Check  on  irregular  vot-  Perforation    Clutch 
ing  of  roll 

Possibility  of  disabling 
mechanism  by  con- 
struction of  keyboard  Yes  No 

Possibility  of  fraud  by  None  found    None 
voter.  found 


Intern' 1         Winslow 

Individual    U  n  p  r  o 
cartridge       tected 


476      Possibility  of  fraud  by  D  i  s  c  o  n  ■ 


judge. 


Fraud  by  custodian 


Provision   for 
spections 


three 


nectmg  one 
or  more 
keys  from 
party  lever 
at  time  of 
inspection. 
Wrong  set- 
t  i  n  g  of 
counters 

Disconnect   Same 
actuating 
mechanism 
from  one  or 
more  keys 


Wrong  set- 
t  i  n  g  of 
counters 


Yes 

Turn  coun- 
ter if  pos- 
sessed    of 
key 
None 


No 

No  limita- 
tion to  amt. 
of  irregular 
voting 
Wrong  set 
ting  of 
counters 


None 


None 


Same 


Yes 


Same 


Yes 


Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 


85 


476 


Item 

Triumph 

Empire 

Intem'l 

Winslow 

Dimensions,  width 

22' 

19" 

26" 

22" 

Required  for  length 

m" 

88' 

88" 

78" 

Storage,  Height 

m" 

62" 

42" 

68* 

Weight  as  per  proposal 

725 

904 

665  to  715 

1260 

Shipping  box 
Exterior  finish 

286 

Enamel 

Enamel 

Enamel 

Paint 

Effectiveness  of  mechani 

ism 

Excellent 

Excellent 

Good 

Fair 

Pull  of  party  lever 

25  lbs. 

None 

5  lbs. 

75  lbs. 

Relative   convenience   of 

handling 

First 

Third 

Second 

Fourth 

Party  voting 

Party 

Party 

Party 

Party 

lever 

key 

lever 

lever 

Split  voting 

Party  lever 

Individual 

Party  lev- 

Party lever 

and       indi- 

key 

er  and  in- 

and   indi- 

vidual key 

dividual 
key 
Same  plac- 

vidual key 

Irregular  voting 

Written   or 

Same    o  n 

Same   on 

sticker   o  n 

roll 

ed     in     a 

roll 

roll 

cartridge 

Correcting  voting  error 

By  voter 

By  judge 

Not     pos- 
sible 

By  voter 

"All  of  the  machines  submitted  comply  with  the  re- 
quirements of  the  State  law.  All  are  constructed  of  steel, 
aluminum,  bronze  and  other  composition  metal,  and  the 
parts  are  of  sufficient  strength  and  durability  for  their 
respective  duties. 

"All,  with  one  exception  are  of  proper  mechanical  de- 
sign to  perform  their  required  operations,  the  exception 
being  in  the  case  of  the  counter  mechanism  of  the  Win- 
476  slow  machine. 

"For  convenience  in  transportation  the  machines  may 
be  rated  inversely  as  their  respective  weight  w^hich  is 
as  follows: 


International 

665  to  715  lbs. 

Canvas  case. 

Triumph 

725  lbs. 

Canvas  case 

Empire 

^    904  lbs. 

Wooden  case,  185  lbs 

Winslow 

1,260  lbs. 

Canvas  case. 

"The  design  of  the  keyboard  and  counter  mechanism 
for  simple,  easy,  rapid  and  positive  voting,  is  satisfac- 
477  tory  in  the  Triumph  and  also  in  the  Empire,  except  that 
with  the  latter  machine,  which  has  no  party  lever,  split 
voting  requires  a  few  seconds  more  time  than  is  neces- 
sary to  vote  a  split  ticket,  on  a  machine  equipped  with 
a  party  lever.  Your  commission  does  not  set  this  up 
as  an  important  point,  but  think  it  should  be  brought 
to  your  attention. 


'  The    horizontal 


arrangement 


of    the    International 


86  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

keyboard  is  not  approved,  neither  is  the  arrangements 
of  the  printed  lines  on  the  ballot.  These  points  were 
called  to  the  attention  of  the  mechanician  demonstrating 
the  machine  who  stated  that  the  machine  could  be  readily 
adapted  to  a  vertical  position  keyboard  with  horizontal 
printed  lines,   and  in  this   statement  your  commission 

477  concurs.  The  movement  of  the  voting  key  is  too  slight 
to  be  positive  indication  of  its  having  been  voted,  and  it 
is  easily  possible  to  give  the  party  lever  a  partial  move- 
ment which  wall  actuate  some  but  not  all  of  the  counters. 

"The  Winslow  machine  has  a  well  arranged  keyboard 
and  a  design  of  voting  keys  which  gives  a  positive  in- 
dication for  whom  the  votes  are  cast,  but  the  pull  re- 
quired to  operate  a  party  lever  constitutes  a  very  serious 
objection  to  this  machine. 

"Provision  for  a  prescribed  and  limited  number  of 
inspections  of  counters  by  election  judges  before  and 
after  hours  of  voting,  your  experts  consider  highly  de- 

478  sirable.  Provision  for  limiting  the  number  of  inspec- 
tions by  judges  is  made  in  the  International  machine 
and  in  the  Winslow  machine,  but  is  not  provided  in  the 
Triumph  nor  in  the  Kmpire.  It  seems  that  it  would  be 
a  rather  simple  matter  to  include  such  an  attachment 
in  the  mechanism  of  these  two  named  machines. 

"Absolute  proof  against  fraud  by  custodian,  judges 
or  voters  or  by  connivance  of  two  or  more  of  th'ese  par- 
ties is,  of  course,  impossible,  but  certain  precautions 
may  be  taken  which  will  make  voting  machines  reason- 
ably secure  in  this  respect. 
478  "The  use  of  a  rubber  band  attached  to  a  voting  key  to 
give  false  indication  is  such  a  clumsy  and  apparent  at- 
tempt at  fraud  that  it  need  scarcely  be  considered,  al- 
though this  method  of  deception  is  applicable  to  the  Tri- 
umph machine.  A  more  serious  matter,  however,  is  the 
possibility  witli  this  same  machine  of  disconnecting  an 
individual  counter  from  a  party  lever  which  may  be  done 
by  a  custodian  before  the  machine  is  sent  out  or  by  the 
.  judge  at  the  time  of  an  inspection  in  the  polling  place. 
Your  commission  considers  that  the  designers  of  the  ma- 
chine can  easily  provide  protection  which  will  prevent  a 
judge  from  so  tampering  with  the  machine,  and  a  rule  re- 
quiring the  judges  to  test  all  voting  levers  and  keys  be- 
fore polls  open  w^ould  detect  any  false  setting  on  the  part 
of  the  custodian. 


The  Decision  of  the  Experts.  87 

' '  The  Empire  is,  in  the  opinion  of  your  experts,  reason- 
ably well  protected  against  possibilities  of  fraud. 

479  "The  International  in  its  present  form  may  be  easily 
tampered  with  by  a  voter  possessed  of  a  key  which  will 
open  the  machine  to  the  counters,  as  he  could  change  them 
to  any  desired  indication.  This  weakness  might,  in  a  way, 
be  protected  by  a  seal  which  would  indicate  when  the  ma- 
chine is  opened. 

"The  Winslow  is  susceptible  to  fraud  in  that  the  re- 
strictive device  for  women  voters  is  not  effective,  render- 
ing it  possible  for  such  a  voter  to  cast  a  full  party  vote; 
and  there  being  no  check  on  the  paper  roll  which  provides 
for  the  irregular  vote,  a  voter  might  cast  several  ballots 
for  any  irregular  candidate. 

"As  will  be  seen  in  the  foregoing,  each  machine  pos- 
sesses certain  points  of  excellence  and  certain  defects 
which  are  not  common  to  all.  Some  of  these  defects  are 
not  vital  and  most  of  them  may  be  overcome  by  the  de- 
signers. 

' '  Your  commission  believes  that  the  voting  machine  art 
has  been  developed  to  a  point  where  machines  may  be  in- 
stalled in  Chicago  with  safety  and  economy  and  that  such 
installation  shall  be  the  means  of  greatly  minimizing  pos- 
sibility of  fraud  at  the  polls.  Taking  the  machines  as  sub- 
mitted and  allowing  for  such  changes  as  manufacturers 
would  doubtless  be  glad  to  make  if  requested,  your  com- 
mission gives  them  the  following  relative  rating  for  gen- 
eral adaptability  to  your  purposes: 

480  "First:    Empire  Voting  Machine. 

' '  Second :    Triumph  Voting  Machine. 
' '  Third :    International  Voting  Machine. 
' '  Fourth :    Winslow  Voting  Machine. 
"All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)    W.  L.  Abbott, 

Paul  M.  Chamberlain, 
Wm.  M.  Wooley." 
482       The  report  was  filed  with  the  commission  and  received 
consideration.     The  witness  thinks  it  was  received  June 
28th. 

"This  is  a  motion  made  by  Mr.  Czarnecki  at  the  meet- 
ing of  Friday,  June  30th,  1911  (reading) : 

"  'Whereas,  the  voting  for  groups  of  judicial  candi- 
482-3  dates  and  County  Commissioners  is  a  question  of  great 
importance  in  Chicago's  elections; 

"  'Whereas,  the  number  of  judges  to  be  voted  for  is 


88  Motion  of  Commissioner  Czarnecki. 

steadily  increasing,  and  the  number  of  County  Commis- 
sioners to  be  voted  for  in  the  future  may  be  increased 
beyond  the  number  of  ten ; 

"  'Whereas,  the  Board  of  three  engineering  experts  in 
their  report  are  silent  entirely  upon  tlie  question  of  group 
voting,  the  practicability  of  grouping  for,  say,  fifteen  or 
twenty  candidates  without  violating  the  law  in  permitting 
extra  votes  under  such  grouping,  and  throw  no  light  upon 
the  subject  as  to  whether  any  test  was  made  along  that 
line ;  it  is  hereby  moved  that  this  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners before  passing  any  further  in  the  voting  ma- 
Qhine  matter,  and  before  taking  any  other  action,  do  now 
proceed  to  make  its  own  test  with  reference  to  the  group- 
ing of  fifteen  or  twenty  names  for  an  office  to  determine 
whether  the  future  requirements  of  the  election  conditions 
can  be  complied  with,  or  whether  the  adoption  of  ma- 
chines at  present  submitted  will  limit  the  grouping  of 
fifteen  or  twenty  without  the  dangers  of  facilitating  the 
casting  of  an  additional  or  more  illegal  voting  for  such 
grouped  office.'  " 
484  The  motion  received  no  second.  Witness  assumes  that 
in  the  experts'  report  of  the  grouping  device  of  the  Em- 
pire machine,  that  the  experts  had  tested  it  and  made  no 
objection. 

488  Witness'  attention  is  called  to  the  clause  in  his  resolu- 
tion: "Therefore  be  it  resolved  that  this  Board  do  at 
once  proceed  to  arrange  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting 
machines,  deliverable  in  installments  approximately  as 
provided  by  the  specifications  hitherto  adopted  by  the 
Board."  Witness  does  not  think  that  the  Empire  Ma- 
chine Company  had  had  any  conversation  with  him  in 
reference  to  delivering  machines  at  that  time. 

489  The  provision  that  the  delivery  of  the  machines  should 
be  "approximately"  as  defined  in  the  specifications  was 
placed  in  the  resolution  so  that  the  authority  of  the  Board 
to  make  the  contract  should  not  be  too  arbitrary,  too  pre- 
cise, and  allow  some  latitude.  The  witness  knew  there 
would  have  to  be  some  accommodation  as  to  delivery. 

"Q.  Why?  A.  Well,  it  might  be,  as  it  afterwards 
transpired,  that  we  should  have  these,  not  in  three  or 
four  big  deliveries,  but  in  deliveries  of  fifty.  I  remember 
talking  that  up  and  they  said  they  did  not  want  their 
machines  piled  up  in  the  shop  and  they  would  like  to  de- 
liver them  fifty  at  a  time  as  fast  as  they  were  finished 
and  prepared ;  so  that  was  one  thing ;  I  cannot  recall  just 


Czarnecki  Moves  to  Limit  Machine  Purchase.  89 

what  the  reason  was,  but  it  was  intended  to  allow  some 
latitude  in  making  a  contract. ' ' 

490  The  change  did  not  necessarily  mean  a  change  in  the 
specifications  after  delivery  of  200  machines  within  four 
months,  but  that  instead  of  delivering  200  machines  in  a 
single  delivery  they  might  deliver  the  machines  within  the 
months  named  in  installments  of  50. 

As  to  the  second  installment  of  300  machines,  witness 
did  not  mean  that  they  should  be  delivered  in  installments 
of  fifty  or  any  like  number  within  nine  months.  The  word 
"approximately"  simply  referred  to  some  latitude  of  ad- 
justment between  the  Board  and  the  company. 

At  the  meeting  of  June  30th  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
offered  the  following  resolution: 

491  "I  hereby  renew  my  motion  upon  which  no  action  has 
been  taken  up  to  date,  and  now  move  to  limit  the  first  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines  for  the  City  of  Chicago  to  120 ; 
these  to  be  tried  out  in  practical  use  at  the  primaries  and 
elections  of  next  year  before  the  remaining  number  of 
machines  necessary  to  equip  the  City  of  Chicago  are  pur- 
chased." 

The  witness  remembers  the  resolution. 

492  There  was  no  second  to  the  resolution. 

The  witness  stated  regarding  the  resolution  that  "to 
limit  the  purchase  as  requested  would  be  unfair  to  the 
bidders  who  bid  upon  1,200  machines  and  would  be  merely 
a  delay  in  bringing  about  the  reform  of  installing  voting 
machine  for  which  the  people  had  voted  which  had  been 
sought  for  many  years." 

Witness  thought  that  the  degree  of  flexibility  as  to  ma- 
chines purchased  required  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki 's 
resolution  a  difference  of  approximately  900  machines 
was  too  much  flexibility.  Witness  did  not  want  the  speci- 
fications enforced  verbatim,  but  approximately. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

493  "I  hereby  renew  my  motion  upon  which  action  has  been 
taken  heretofore  and  now  move  that  the  attorney  for  this 
Board  be  required  to  present  to  this  Board  a  legal  opinion 
with  reference  to  the  financing  of  the  purchase  of  the  vot- 
ing machine  by  this  Board;  the  power  of  this  Board  to 
buy  and  the  need  of  doing  so  in  accordance  with  the  law 
before  deciding  upon  the  'question  of  purchasing." 

494  "Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Had  the  Board  received  any  opinion 


90      Czarnecki  Moves  to  Confer  With  City  Authorities. 

from  the  Counsel  up  to  June  30th,  1911,  on  voting  ma- 
chines! 

"A.    I  could  not  tell  you. 

"Q.  Don't  you  know.  Doctor,  that  it  had  not?  A.  No, 
sir,  I  do  not. 

"Q.  What  is  your  best  judgment  on  that — your  recoL 
lection?  A.  Mr.  Mitchell  had  given  us  a  vocal  talk,  long 
previous  to  that,  giving  a  view  of  the  statute,  and  he  had 
made  us  an  opinion,  I  think,  in  June,  addressed  to  the 
Judge ;  now  I  cannot  give  the  date,  but  some  time,  I  think, 
in  June,  and  that  opinion  was  eventually  sent  down,  as  I 
understand  it,  from  the  court  and  was  filed  in  our  office." 

Witness  thinks  that  up  to  June  30th,  1911,  the  opinion 
Avas  read,  or  a  copy  delivered,  to  each  Commissioner. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    It  does  not  appear  in  the  minutes." 

495  "Mr.  McEwEN.    I  will  agree  that  the  opinion  had  not 
been  delivered  up  to  that  time. ' ' 

The  witness  is  very  confident  that  Mr.  Mitchell's  opin- 
ion, unwritten,  had  been  talked  over  several  times  pre- 
vious to  that. 

Probably  Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  for  a  legal 
opinion  from  counsel  for  the  Board  was  not  seconded. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  submitted  the  following  mo- 
tion : 

"I  hereby  renew  my  motion  upon  which  action  had  been 
taken  some  time  ago,  and  now  move  this  Board  proceed 
to  hold  a  conference  with  the  City  officials  in  charge  of 
Chicago's  finances,  namely,  the  Mayor,  City  Treasurer, 
City  Comptroller,  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee, 
and  the  Corporation  Counsel,  as  to  the  method  of  financ-, 

496  ing  the  purchasing  of  voting  machines,  before  any  action 
is  taken  definitely  by  this  Board. ' ' 

Witness'  recollection  is  it  was  not  considered. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  submit  he  ought  to  read  Commis- 
sioner Taylor's  remarks." 

Mr.  Whittaker  reads  Commissioner  Taylor's  remarks 
as  follows : 
496-7  "Commissioner  Taylor  stated  that  the  question  of 
financing  the  purchase  of  voting  machines  was  not  neces- 
sary at  this  time,  that  there  would  be  sufficient  time  for 
such  conference,  a  conference,  if  one  is  deemed  advisal)le 
or  necessary,  to  be  held  some  time  in  the  future,  before 
any  contract  is  signed  or  entered  into." 

497  "Mr.  Deneen.     'Chief  Clerk  Stuart  stated  that  there 
was  no  need  of  a  delay  for  a  conference  and  that  a  confer- 


No  Conference  Had  With  City  Authorities.  91 

ence  could  be  held  later  on. '  '  Chairman  Kel  lemiann  stated 
that  he  understood  that  a  conference  would  be  held  in 
due  course  of  time. '  ' ' 

No  such  conference  was  ever  held  by  the  Board. 

Later,  in  December,  the  Board  authorized  the  Clerk 
to  write  a  statement  to  the  Mayor  and  the  Council  and 
the  Finance  Committee  to  the  effect  that  a  contract  had 
been  entered  into,  reciting  it,  and  requesting  the  Council 
and  the  Finance  Committee  to  make  provision  for  pay- 

498  ment.     This  was  the  only  time  any  relation  was  created 
between  the  Board  and  the  City  Council. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  made  the  following 
motion: 

"I  move  that  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  be 
ordered  to  produce  before  this  Board  a  machine  which 
will  have  the  objections  of  weight,  cumbersomeness,  lack 
of  restriction  of  inspections,  the  inability  of  the  voter 
casting  a  straight  party  vote  to  see  any  indications  as  to 
the  names  of  the  candidates  he  voted  for  or  against,  of 
the  absence  of  the  party  lever,  the  absence  of  any  printed 
record  of  the  counters  before  and  after  the  voting  takes 
place,  the  absence  of  a  grand  total  of  both  straight  and 
individual  votes  at  the  close  of  an  election,  and  other  im- 
perfections, cured  and  corrected  before  the  question  of 
passing  upon  its  merits  or  awarding  a  contract  to  that 
Company  is  resolved  upon." 

Witness  does  not  think  this  motion  received  a  second. 

"A.  I  cannot  tell  you  that.  Probably  there  was  a  de- 
bate on  it. 

"Q.  On  a  motion  not  seconded?  A.  A  debate  on 
the  proposition. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  There  was  some  statement  made  on 
the  subject  immediately  following. 

499  "Mr.  Deneen.    On  page  193  of  minutes. 

"Mr.  McEwEx.  Commissioner  Taylor  made  some  re- 
marks and  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  too. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Let  us  see  what  it  was  he  said: 

"  'Commissioner  Taylor  declared  that  the  motion  of 
Commissioner  Czarnecki  did  not  entirely  state  facts  con- 
cerning the  Empire  voting  machine,  and  that  it  should  not 
be  considered,  because  it  was  a  move  for  delay. 

"  'Commissioner  Czarnecki  stated  that  the  imperfec- 
tions printed  out  in  his  motion  were  taken  from  the  re- 
port of  the  three  expert  engineers  and  also  included  what 
he  considered  imperfections  which  are  apparent  to  any 


92  Motions  of  Commissioner  Czarnecki. 

observer.  He  insisted  that  the  Board  pass  the  motion 
and  that  the  imperfections  of  the  machine  as  claimed  by 
him  be  corrected  before  any  action  concerning  the  merits 
of  the  machine  or  the  awarding  of  the  contract  be  taken. 

"  'Chairman  Kellennann  declared  that  he  was  going 
to  act  on  the  report  and  the  opinion  of  the  three  experts 
appointed  by  the  County  Judge,  which  approves  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  and  that  this  report  will  be  the  basis 
of  his  action  on  the  resolution  of  Commissioner  Taylor.'  " 

500  Witness  thinks  that  the  action  of  the  Board  was  that 
stated  in  the  above  minutes. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  made  the  following  mo- 
tion: 

"I  move  that  before  this  Board  takes  any  action  uix)n 
the  selection  of  any  machine  that  we  proceed  at  once  to 
enforce  Section  '18'  of  our  own  specifications,  which  pro- 
vides that  a  public  exhibition  of  all  machines  of  bidders 
will  be  conducted  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
at  such  times  prior  to  the  awarding  of  a  bid,  as  the  said 
Board  may  determine.  At  all  such  exhibitions,  the  bidder 
will  be  required  to  have  present  a  person  competent  to 
demonstrate  in  every  particular  the  operation  of  the  ma- 
chine offered  in  bid. ' ' 

' '  Mr.  Deneen.  Now  I  will  read  Section  18  of  the  specifi- 
cations,— we  have  it  here.  Section  18  of  the  specifications 
reads  as  follows:  'A  public  exhibition  of  all  machines  of 
bidders  will  be  conducted  by  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners at  such  times  prior  to  the  award  of  the  bid  as 
said  Board  may  determine,  at  all  such  exhibitions  the  bid- 
der shall  be  required  to  have  present  a  person  competent 
to  demonstrate  in  every  particular  the  operation  of  the 
machine  offered  in  the  bid.'  " 

Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  received  no  second. 

501  Witness  is  asked  why  no  public  exhibition  was  held  as 
provided  for  in  the  specification. 

"A.  Oh,  we  had  had  a  public  exhibition  for  from  about 
the  middle  of  March  almost  straight  along.  The  provision 
as  you  call  it,  was  taken  from  the  old  specification  of  the 
previous  Board,  and  it  had  no  practical,  and  fruitful  end  at 
all,  if  we  had  had  a  public  exhibition  in  that  sense  and 
had  gotten  a  few  hundred  people  in  here,  they  would  have 
in  no  way  represented  the  intelligence  and  the  interest 
of  Chicago,  we  could  have  invited  the  judges  and  clerks 
in,  and  they  could  not  have  had  such  a  bid,  with  a  skilled 
opinion  as  to  the  machine,  and  the  education  they  might 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  93 

have  gotten  would  have  been  small.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
down  in  the  old  Rand-McNally  building  where  we  were 
located  at  that  time  before  we  came  into  the  City  Hall, 
we  had  a  string  of  people  there  all  day  looking  at  the  ma- 
chines and  talking  and  speculating  and  inquiring.  Ac- 
cording to  my  recollection  pretty  much  all  of  the  business 
hours  of  the  day  for  weeks  together." 

502  "Q.  You  think  that  the  intelligent  persons  would  not 
have  availed  themselves  of  an  opportunity  to  inspect  the 
machines'?  A.  I  do  not  think  that  many  of  the  intelligent 
people  in  Chicago  would  have  done  it." 

The  press  had  notified  the  public  that  the  Commissioners 
were  investigating  voting  machines  and  that  the  machines 
were  'located  in  the  Election  Commissioner's  office  and 
witness  thinks  one  was  at  an  hotel  and  pretty  nearly  all 
the  people  that  could  get  around  to  the  place  to  investi- 
gate machines  were  investigating  them. 

The  witness  does  not  recall  that  the  City  Club  asked 
for  an  opportunity  to  investigate  machines.     The  news- 

503  paper  had  given  considerable  notice  to  the  voting 
machines. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Here  is  an  editorial  from  the  Daily 
News  of  June  16th,  1911,  fourteen  days  before;  I  will  read 
it  and  see  if  you  recall  it,  about  giving  a  public  exhibition. 

'  *  '  A  small  rubber  band  or  small  string  arranged  on  the 
face  of  the  machine  can  be  placed  upon  the  keys  of  three 
or  four  machines  submitted  in  such  a  manner  that  voting 
for  one  or  more  candidates  can  be  interfered  with,  un- 
known to  the  voters;  upon  three  of  the  machines,  an  in- 
dependent voter  who  desires  to  write  in  the  name  of  his 
candidate  cannot  change  his  mind  after  he  has  the  name 
of  the  candidate  on  the  paper  provided  for  the  purpose. 
Only  one  of  the  machines  has  a  device  for  a  printing  rec- 
ord showing  the  condition  before  election  and  the  votes 
registered  by  the  various  candidates  after  election,  the 
printed  record  that  if  there  was  a  contest  would  be  unques- 
tioned as  to  the  fact.'  " 

504  Witness  thinks  he  read  all  those  things  as  they  came 
out. 

The  article  did  not  impress  upon  the  mind  of  the  wit- 
ness the  necessity  for  public  exhibition  because  "We  were 
having  a  public  exhibition  all  the  time." 

The  witness  heard  testimony  at  the  present  hearing  re- 
garding what  was  called  the  "Knock  Fest"  or  public  com- 
petitive examination  of  machines  conducted  by  the  old 


94  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 

board,  but  has  no  recollection  concerning  such  examina- 
tion. Witness  had  read  minutes  of  old  board,  but  did  not 
recall  that  point. 

505  "A.  I  remember  hearing  that  statement  made  here  by 
a  witness  the  other  day  and  am  doubtful  about  its  accur- 
acy. ' ' 

After  the  experts  had  finished  their  work  and  the  bids 
were  opened,  the  machines  were  placed  on  the 
witness  stand,  and,  out  of  the  seven  machines, 
six  machine  owners  were  directed  to  cross-examine 
the  machine  on  the  witness  stand.  "I  was  not  pres- 
ent, but  that  was  the  testimony  and  may  be  entirely  cor- 
rect." This  was  a  pretty  severe  test  and  would  show  de- 
ficiencies and  efficiencies. 

506  The  witness  thinks  that  in  the  examination  of  machines 
by  the  present  Board,  the  men  opposing  them  there,  par- 
ticularly Mr.  Winslow,  was  making  known  pretty  gener- 
ally all  of  the  deficiencies  and  faults  of  all  the  other  ma- 
chines and  witness  cannot  see  how  he  could  have  done  it 
more  effectually  than  he  did. 

"We  were  advised,  I  think,  once  or  twice  a  day." 

"Q.  By  protest?  A.  No,  not  by  written  protest,  but 
circulating  around,  talking. 

"  Q.  Didn  't  he  file  a  written  request  for  certified  copies 
of  the  meeting  and  threaten  to  institute  a  suit  against  you? 
A.    Yes,  sir." 

Witness  thought  that  a  public  examination  and  inspec- 
tion of  machines  would  not  be  fruitful  or  any  advantage  to 
the  Board.    "They  were  doing  all  they  could." 

Witness  recognized  that  "at  the  nieeting  of  the  City 
Club,  July  18th,  pretty  much  all  of  the  well-informed  ca- 
pacity had  been  brought  to  fight  all  machines." 

507  Witness  left  the  meeting  before  it  was  over  and  does  not 
recall  that  no  representative  of  other  voting  machines  was 
present  or  made  a  speech.  Witness  made  a  speech,  also 
George  C.  Stykes.  Witness  thinks  Mr.  Stykes  probably 
represented  the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency. 

Mr.  Czarnecki  made  a  speech ;  Professor  Depuy,  George 
M.  Singleton,  George  Hooker  and  W.  L.  Abbott  made 
speeches  and  witness  made  a  reply. 

Witness  does  not  say  that  any  one  of  these  men  repre- 
sented the  Winslow  or  International  voting  machine. 

508  Mr.  Abbott  and  Mr.  Depuy  were  experts. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Will  you  state  whether  or  not  the  Em- 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  95 

pire  Company  had  an  Empire  machine  on  exhibition  in  the 
middle  of  March,  19111 

509  A.    I  think  that  was  a  Standard. 

Q.  The  fact  was  they  never  had  an  Empire  on  exhibi- 
tion until  after  your  contract  was  let,  isn't  that  the  truth 
of  itf  A.  No,  there  was  an  Empire  examined  by  our 
board  of  experts, — an  Empire  machine,  it  was  not  a  Stand- 
ard, but  an  Empire.  I  want  to  make  it  plain,  this  explana- 
tion, so  that  there  will  be  no  misconstruction.  The  Stand- 
509-513  ard  and  Empire,  as  I  recall,  are  almost  identical,  be- 
long to  the  same  company,  they  use  the  same  important 
parts,  namely,  the  vedermeter  and  the  strap  mechanism  by 
which  the  vedermeter  is  actuated.  The  only  difference  be- 
tween them  is  that  one  had  the  lever,  the  Standard  had  a 
party  lever  and  the  Empire  I  think  a  key,  and  there  was  a 
device  on  the  Standard,  I  don't  recall  whether  the  other 
had  it  or  not,  but  when  the  voter  had  voted  and  swung  his 
lever,  there  was  a  bell  rang;  that  and  one  or  two  other 
parts,  particulars,  I  don't  recall  now,  constituted  all  the 
difference,  something  in  the  shape  of  the  keys,  too,  the  vot- 
ing key  on  the  keyboard,  the  machine  was  shaped  some- 
what diiferently  than  that  on  the  Standard  machine.  Go 
.    on. 

510  Q.  The  machine  that  was  exhibited  by  the  Empire  Com- 
pany was  Serial  No.  3592,  made  at  Eochester,  New  York, 
wasn't  it?    A.    Rochester. 

Q.  Rochester,  not  Jamestown!  A.  That  one  that  was 
exhibited  before  our  experts  ? 

Q.    Yes.    A.    I  don't  think  so. 

Q.  You  would  not  say  it  was  not?  A.  No,  I  would  not 
say.    I  thought  it  was  an  Empire. 

Q.  Wasn't  it  the  identical  machine  rejected  by  the  old 
board  of  experts ?  A.  I  don't  know.  I  never  heard  any- 
thing about  that. 

Q.  Just  a  minute,  let  me  refresh  your  recollection  on 
that,  I  will  call  your  attention  to  an  article  that  appeared 
in  the  Daily  News. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    What  is  the  number  of  the  machine? 

Mr.  Deneen.  Number  3592  is  the  serial  number.  Here 
1)10  it  is,  I  have  not  the  article  but  I  have  a  synopsis  of  it,  Sep- 
tember 26th  it  appears. 

A.     Synopsis  from  what? 

Mr.  Deneen.  Daily  News  article.  Daily  News  chargeg 
that  the  sample  machine  of  the  Empire  Machine  Company 


96  Did  Commission's  Experts  Examine  Rejected  Machine? 

on  which  the  order  was  placed,  Serial  No.  3592,  was  made 
in  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  by  the  United  States  Standard  Com- 
511  pany  and  was  the  identical  machine  rejected  by  Judge 
Rinaker's  experts. 

A.  In  the  experts '  report  the  numbers  of  the  two  ma- 
chines are  given,  Judge,  can  you  look  it  up,  that  is  1911. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    Which  one  do  you  want,  1910"? 

The  Witness.  1911  the  numbers  of  the  machines  that 
were  examined  by  Abbott,  Wooley  and  Chamberlain,  I  am 
very  confident  it  was  not  that  number. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  have  not  these  reports  here,  they  are 
on  file. 

Mr.  Deneen.  It  is  copied  in  the  minutes.  It  is  page 
186, 1  think,  page  185  in  our  report,  it  is  in  the  meeting  of 
June  30th,  the  minutes  of  the  board. 

The  Chaibman.    June  26th,  pardon  me. 

Mr.  Deneen.    June  26th. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    What  is  the  number  on  your  report? 

The  Chaibman.  Page  185,  signed  by  Abbott,  Chamber- 
lain and  Wooley. 

511  Mr.  McEwEN.     I  don't  think  they  give  the  number,  I 
think  that  report  is  over  in  the  office. 

Mr.  Deneen.    I  think  there  is  no  number  given. 
Mr.  McEwEN.    I  haven't  the  report  here. 
Mr.  Deneen.    Doctor,  will  you  say  whether  or  not  the 
Empire  Machine  Company  had  an  Empire  machine  on 

512  exhibition  from  the  middle  of  March  straight  along? 

A.    I  think  so,  sir. 

Q.  Until  June  30th,  when  this  discussion  occurred,  and 
this  motion  was  made  ?  A.  I  would  not  say  from  the  mid- 
dle of  March  probably,  that  was  a  Standard  machine  and 
the  Empire  machine,  however,  if  I  recall  it  properly,  was 
analyzed  and  passed  upon  by  the  experts  who  reported 
on  June  3rd. 

Q.    That  is,  you  say  you  think  they  did?    A.    I  think  so. 

Sen.  Canaday.  I  did  not  catch  his  answer  to  that  ques- 
tion, whether  or  not  this  was  the  same  machine  that  was 
examined  under  Judge  Rinaker. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Yes,  will  you  answer  that? 

Sen.  Canaday.  I  don't  know  whether  he  answered  it  or 
not. 

A.  No,  I  never  heard  of  that  before,  I  never  heard  of 
that  article,  that  was  never  called  to  my  attention — 

Sen.  Canaday.  You  don 't  know  whether  it  was  the  same 
machine  that  was  examined  by  the  former  commission? 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  97 

A.    I  have  not,  I  think  not,  I  am  almost  sure — 
Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    The  fact  is,  you  don 't  know  the  iden- 
tical number  of  the  machine  that  was  examined  there  of 
the  Empire,  the  Winslow,  Triumph  or  any  of  the  com- 
peting companies,  do  you! 

513  A.  All  I  remember  is  the  numbering  of  the  two  ma- 
chines, the  Empire  machines  that  were  examined  by  our 
experts,  and  I  think  they  ran  up  each  of  the  numbers  over 
four  thousand. 

Sen.  Canaday.  Do  you  know  why  the  secretary  did  not 
keep  a  record  of  the  numbers,  is  there  any  reason  why  the 
numbers  were  not  kept? 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  don't  believe  that  there  was  any  record 
kept  of  the  machines  examined  by  the  members. 

Sen.  Canaday.  Well,  why  didn't  the  secretary  keep  a 
record  of  the  numbers  ? 

Mr.  Deneen.  He  simply  incorporated  the  report  of  the 
commissioners,  the  secretary  did  not  examine  them. 

514  "The  voting  machines  were  examined  by  the  experts 
in  what  we  called  the  hidden  room  of  the  Election  Com- 
missioners' office  and  no  one  was  permitted — " 

No  time  was  ever  set  for  a  public  exhibition. 

515  Witness  thought  that  the  Election  Commission  was  in 
possession  of  every  point  of  criticism  that  could  be  raised 
against  any  of  the  machines.  The  criticism  that  the  ex- 
perts had  examined  the  wrong  machine  was  a  piece  of  in- 
formation the  Commission  did  not  have,  if  it  was  true. 

516  If  true  it  would  be  a  serious  matter.  The  witness  could 
not  say  that  the  Empire  machine  was  exhibited  while  the 
people  were  strolling  around  the  corridors. 

The  witness  thinks  that  the  Empire  Machine  Company 
did  not  exhibit  to  the  Election  Commission  a  9-party,  70- 
key  machine  before  December,  1911. 

Here  Mr.  Whittaker  read  paragraph  18  from  the  speci- 
fications, as  follows : 

"A  public  exhibition  of  all  machines  of  bidders  will  be 
conducted  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  at 

517  such  times  prior  to  the  award  of  the  bid  as  said  board  may 
determine ;  at  all  such  exhibitions  the  bidder  shall  be  re- 
quired to  have  present  a  person  competent  to  demonstrate 
in  every  particular  the  operation  of  the  machine  offered 
in  the  bid. ' ' 

519  * '  Q.  Did  you  have  a  public  exhibition  of  the  machines, 
offered  and  bid,  wherein  each  machine  had  its  demon- 


98  No  Public  Exhibition  of  Voting  Machines. 

strator  to  exhibit  the  machine,  and  at  a  specified  time  and 
place,  as  provided  for  in  Section  18  of  the  specifications? 

"A.    I  don't  think  we  had  any  arrangement  of  that  sort. 

"Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  offered  the  following 
resolution : 
519  &  520    ''Whereas,  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  machines 
involves  the  expenditures  of  a  large  sum  of  money;  and 

"Whereas,  precedents  recently  established  in  connec- 
tion with  the  expenditures  of  large  sums  of  money  by 
public  bodies  have  been  to  submit  the  question  of  the 
making  of  such  an  expenditure  to  the  vote  of  the  people ; 

"Therefore,  I  move  that  this  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners does  hereby  resolve  to  submit  to  the  voters 
of  the  City  of  Chicago,  at  the  very  next  election,  the 
question  of  whether  or  not  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners shall  proceed  to  expend  the  specific  sum  neces- 
sary for  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  machines ;  and  that 
pending  this  referendum,  the  Board  withold  its  definite 
action  in  the  proposed  purchase  of  voting  machines." 

Witness  does  not  think  that  the  motion  was  seconded, 
but  that  some  remarks  were  made  about  it  by  himself  and 
Mr.  Mitchell. 

"Me.  Denekn:  Mr.  Mitchell  made  the  remark  that  it 
is  illegal. ' ' 

Mr.  Taylor,  the  witness,  then  offered  the  following 
resolution  at  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners, at  which  Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  last  reso- 
lution had  been  offered : 

"Commissioner  Taylor  moved  that  the  adoption  of 
the  resolution  which  he  had  presented  earlier  in  the  meet- 
ing, with  reference  to  the  Board's  favoring  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine,  and  going  ahead  with  the  plan  to  pur- 
chase 1,000  machines  be  taken  up  for  vote  and  disposition. 

"The  resolution  of  Commissioner  Taylor  was  then 
re-read,  and  Commissioner  Taylor  formally  moved  its 
adoption. 

"Chairman  Kellermann  seconded  the  motion  of  Com- 
missioner Taylor,  after  which  it  was  submitted  to  a  vote. 

"Commissioners  Taylor  and  Kellermann  voted  'aye,' 
and  Commissioner  Czarnecki  voted  'nay.' 

' '  The  resolution  to  buy  being  adopted  by  a  vote  of  two 
to  one,  Commissioner  Czarnecki  voting  'nay.' 

"The  Witness.    That  is  a  correct  statement." 

At  the  same  meeting  Commissioner  Czarnecki  there- 
upon offered  the  following  resolution: 


The  Daily  News  on  Voting  Machines.  99 

b22  "I  move,  that  in  the  light  of  the  action  regarding  Com- 
missioner Taylor's  resolution  yesterday,  with  reference 
to  the  Empire  Voting  Machine ;  and  in  view  of  the  request 
made  here  today  by  the  International,  the  Triumph  and 
the  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Companies  for  the  return 
of  their  checks  deposited  by  them  with  their  bids  with  this 
Board,  which  checks  were  made  payable  to  Chas.  H.  Kel- 
lermann,  it  is  hereby  ordered  by  this  Board  that  the 
Chairman  be  hereby  ordered  to  return  on  Monday,  July 
3rd,  the  certified  checks  held  by  him  from  the  International 
Voting  Machine  Company  for  $54,000,  and  the  Winslow 
Voting  Machine  Company  for  $2,500,  and  a  cashier's 
check  from  the  Triumph  Voting  Machine  Company  for 
$60,000,  as  set  forth  in  the  Board's  proceedings  of  June 
1st,  1911." 

Mr.  Deneen  announced  that  he  would  have  read,  a  state- 
ment from  the  Daily  News  of  July  1st,  1911,  to  see  w^hether 
it  affected  the  mind  of  the  witness  before  making  the 
contract : 

523  "July  1st.  News.  Men  who  have  been  busy  in  gambling 
and  slot-machine  devices  have  shown  a  vital  interest  in 
the  activity  to  install  voting  machines  in  this  city,  and  a 
former  racetrack  magnate  of  Chicago,  and  two  racetrack 
men  of  California  are  among  those  interested  in  the 
Empire  Company.  While  some  friends  of  these  men 
maintain  that  their  interest  is  caused  by  their  own  in- 
vestments, others  declare  that  they  are  merely  proxies 
for  certain  other  Chicagoans  reported  to  be  interested 
in  the  voting  devices." 

"Q.  Was  that  called  to  your  attention,  that  article, 
that  information!  A.  There  were  insinuative  and  ma- 
licious publications;  I  recognized  this  as  one  of  them. 
It  did  not  dare  to  give  any  names  and  be  specific  in  their 
accusations." 

The  witness  probably  understood  the  article  to  insinu- 
ate that  Mr.  Condon  was  an  owner  of  the  Empire  Com- 
pany.    Witness  does  not  know  that  he  knew  it  before; 

524  it  is  only  lately  that  the  name  has  become  familiar. 
Witness  does  not  know  and  never  saw  Mr.  Condon. 

Previous  to  or  about  this  time  Conmiissioner  Czarnecki 
had  introduced  resolutions  requiring  the  bidders  to  reveal 
the  names  of  their  stockholders  and  directors.  The 
motion  was  objected  to  by  some  of  the  voting  machine 
men.    Mr.  Farrell  and  Mr.  Barr,  witness  thinks,  objected 


100  Protest  of  Winslow  Company. 

to  it  as  a  business  impertinence,  a  matter  about  which 
the  Commission  had  no  right  to  inquire. 

''Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  The  other  alleged  gambler  referred 
to  in  that  editoral  was  a  Mr.  Willians,  of  Oakland,  Cali- 
fornia, who  had  been  mixed  up  there  in  voting  machine 
deals?" 

"A.  I  have  heard  from  the  same  reliable  source  that 
there  is  a  man  named  Williams  in  California.  I  want  to 
say  that  I  have  never  heard  of  Mr.  Williams  before,  never 

525  met  him ;  never  seen  him ;  don 't  know  him ;  and  don 't  know 
that  he  is  a  stockholder. ' ' 

*  *  Q.  I  didn  't  charge  that.  Doctor,  you  knew  that  there 
was  a  general  report  here  that  a  number  of  gamblers 
owned  the  Dean  Machine,  didn't  you?  It  was  a  matter  of 
common  knowledge,  wasn't  it?  A.  No,  sir,  I  don't  know 
a  thing  about  it,  even  up  to  this  time ;  never  heard  it. ' ' 

The  Dean  machine  was  one  of  the  machines  that  was 
put  in  by  the  Empire  Company. 

526  The  insinuation  contained  in  the  article  appearing  in 
the  Daily  News  was  not  inquired  into  by  the  Board. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners,  of  July 
1st,  Mr.  Winslow  made  the  following  protest : 

This  is  July  1st  (reading) : 

"Mr.  L.  R.  Winslow  for  the  Winslow  Company,  stated 
that  he  might  prepare  a  written  protest  to  be  filed  on 
Monday,  with  the  Board.  He  desired  to  register  a  protest 
orally  against  the  Board's  action  in  passing  Commis- 
526-528  sioner  Taylor's  resolution  yesterday.  Mr.  Winslow 
stated  that  under  the  resolution,  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company  was  given  an  advantage  in  that  no  limit 
of  time  was  fixed  for  the  construction  of  a  model  machine ; 
that  under  the  resolution,  until  further  action  of  the 
Board,  all  other  voting  machine  companies  excepting 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  were  excluded 
from  participating  in  any  contest  for  the  installation  of 
voting  machines  in  Chicago,  that  the  resolution  directs 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  to  build  a  sample 
machine  and  to  bring  it  to  the  Board  in  accordance  with 
its  plans  and  specifications;  that  this  Board  is  ready  to 
go  ahead  and  give  the  Empire  Company  a  contract  for  the 
purchase  of  1,000  machines.  There  is  no  mention  in  the 
resolution  with  reference  to  giving  them  a  fixed  length  of 
time  so  that  if  within  that  time  they  fail  to  produce  the 
sample  machine,  other  companies  would  then  have  the 
right    to  submit  propositions  to  this  Board. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  101 

"Mr.  Winslow  declared  that  the  report  of  the  experts 
upon  his  machine  was  unfair,  libelous,  and  not  based  up- 
on a  thorough  and  impartial  inquiry,  that  the  Board  of 
experts  did  not  devote  sufficient  time  or  make  a  long 
enough  examination  to  know  what  the  Winslow  or  any 
other  machine  really  was.  He  charges  that  the  experts' 
report  was  made  for  the  special  benefit  of  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company. 

"Commissioner  Taylor  stated  that  the  resolution  gave 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  no  legal  right  and 
special  benefit;  that  it  was  a  notice  that  the  Board  was 
ready  to  enter  into  the  contract  upon  the  production  of 
a  sample  machine  of  a  proper  character  that  if  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company  does  not  comply  within  a  rea- 
sonable length  of  time  with  this  notice,  that  the  Board 
will  consider  that  everything  is  off  and  that  everything 
will  then  commence  anew." 

The  protest  was  received,  but  witness  does  not  recall 
that  it  was  given  any  consideration. 

537  Witness  does  not  recall  the  date  when  the  Commission 
first  learned  that  the  International 's  check  had  been  cashed 
and  placed  to  the  individual  account  of  one  of  the  members 
of  the  Election  Commission.  After  it  was  learned,  the 
witness  took  up  the  matter  with  Mr.  Kellermann,  and  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  Board,  a  motion  was  made 
directing  Mr.  Kellermann  to  redeposit  the  check  so  that 
the  three  members  of  the  Board  would  have  to  sign  in  order 
to  make  it  effective. 

Witness  did  not  make  any  inquiry  as  to  the  charge  that 
the  blue-prints,  photographs,  statements  and  drawings 
of  the  bidders  had  not  been  opened  by  the  experts.  He 
thought  it  was  trivial. 

The  specifications  required  the  companies  to  present 
blue-prints,  photographs,  and  so  forth,  with  their  bids. 
This  was  taken  from  the  old  specification. 

538  The  witness  cannot  understand  "How  an  expert,  or 
even  a  non-expert,  would  want  to  puzzle  over  a  blue-print 
when  he  had  the  machine  right  before  him.  Very  much 
easier  perceived  and  understood  than  a  wilderness  of  blue 
and  white  tracing. ' ' 

The  witness  is  informed  the  International  representa- 
tive claimed  "They  spent  $750  getting  up  blue-prints, 
photographs  and  drawings." 

Witness    is    asked    why,    assuming    such    expenditure 


102  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 

they  required  bidders  to  go  to  so  much  expense  on  useless 
matters,  as  he  deemed  them. 

"A.  I  don't  believe  it  would  have  cost  $100.  I  believe 
that  a  statement  like  all  those  embittered  protests — " 

539  Witness  does  not  know  what  it  cost  bidders  to  prepare 
photographs,  drawings,  and  printed  statements  as  re- 
quired in  the  specifications.  Does  not  know  what  it  cost 
the  International  but  would  not  think  $100.  Witness  has 
some  knowledge  of  blue-prints;  witness  saw  the  blue- 
prints, there  was  a  roll  of  them,  six  or  seven.    Witness 

540  glanced  at  the  end  but  did  not  open  them.  Does  not 
think  that  an  estimate  of  $750  is  anywhere  near  right. 

Witness  does  not  think  that  blue-prints,  drawings  and 
photographs  would  be  of  any  advantage  to  mechanical 
experts  in  examining  machines.  Thinks  that  the  parts  of 
the  machine  would  be  a  hundredfold  more  useful  and 
informing  than  any  blue-prints. 

The  witness  does  not  know  whether  the  protest  filed  by 
the  International  Company  requested  an  opportunity  to 
present  statements  regarding  the  cost  of  blue-prints 
or  regarding  the  failure  to  have  a  public  exhibition  under 
Section  18  of  the  specifications.  "The  statement  made  in 
the  International's  protest,  that  no  such  meeting  was 
ever  held,  is  not  true,  or  depends  on  what  you  would  de- 
termine would  be  a  public  meeting.  If  it  means  a  specified 
hour  and  a  specified  place  and  a  specific  notice  and  an 
orderly  assembly,  no  such  meeting  was  held.  If  it  means 
an  assembling  of  the  people  representing  all  parties  and 
classes  and  grades  coming  continuously,  and  as  there 
could  be  accommodations,  looking  at  the  machines  and 
"watching  its  operation,  then  we  did  have  one." 

Volume  VII. 

Morning  Session. 
Friday,  July  25,  1913. 
544  Dr.  Howard  S.  Taylob  resumes  the  stand: 

Witness  refers  to  a  Daily  News  article  charging  that 
the  machine  examined  by  the  Election  Commissioners 
in  the  Spring  of  1911,  was  the  same  machine  which  had 
been  examined  and  rejected  by  the  previous  Board,  and 
says: 

"I  stated  that  it  was  my  clear  recollection  that  the 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  103 

machine  examined  by  the  experts  in  June,  1911,  was  an 
Empire  machine,  and  was  not  a  Standard  machine  that 
had  been  previously  examined  and  rejected  by  the  old 
Board,  and  that,  according  to  my  recollection,  the  number 
of  the  machine  examined  by  the  experts  was  something 
over  four  thousand. 

545  "I  now  recall  that  those  machines  were  examined  by 
the  State  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  and  that  their 
reports  give  the  number  and  kind  of  machine.  The  reports 
of  the  Commissioners  have  been  read  into  the  minutes 
of  this  inquiry,  as  I  understand,  and  I  would  like  to  name 
the  numbers  and  kinds  of  machines  from  these  reports. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Very  well. 

"A.  The  first  of  the  reports  of  the  State  Voting  Ma- 
chine Commissioners  I  read  from  the  certified  copy  of 
the  reports  hitherto  read  into  the  minutes,  the  initial 
words  of  the  certificate  say,  'I,  James  A.  Rose,  Secretary 
of  the  State  of  Illinois,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  follow- 
ing and  hereto  attached  is  a  true  copy  of  the  report  of  the 
Illinois  State  Voting  Machine  Commission,  relating  to 
Empire  Voting  Machine  No.  4071, '  filed  March  21st,  1911, 
and  the  initial  paragraph  in  the  report  itself  is:  'The 
undersigned,  constituting  the  Illinois  Voting  Machine 
Commission  appointed  under  the  laws  of  1903,  hereby 
certify  that  on  the  20th  day  of  March,  1911,  we  examined 
Empire  Voting  Machine  No.  4071,  submitted  by  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company  of  Jamestown,  New  York, 
and  report  as  follows:'  I  don't  know  as  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  read  the  remainder  of  the  report. ' ' 

546  The  name,  the  number,  and  date  of  the  examination  of 
the  other  machines  examined  by  the  State  Board  of  Voting 
Machine  Commisioners  was  December  21,  1911,  No.  4362, 
submitted  by  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  of 
Jamestown,  New  York. 

"Q.  The  question  yesterday  was  asked  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  experts  or  commission  of  experts  of  Judge 
Owens  examined  these  machines,  wasn't  it?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.    Nothing  was  then  said  about  the  State  experts? 

"A.    Well,  I  don 't  recall  that,  my  impression — ' ' 

547  "Q.  So  that  these  corrections,  the  attempted  correc- 
tions you  make,  do  not  apply  to  anything  that  was  said 
yesterday?    A.    Yes,  I  think  they  do. 

"Q.  In  what  way?  A.  They  proved  the  machine  that 
was  on  exhibition  here  early  in  the  spring,  in  February, 
was  an  Empire  machine,  and  I  think  that  the  necessary 


104  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

inference  is  that  that  was  the  machine  that  was  examined 
by  the  experts. ' ' 

The  witness  saw  the  machine  quite  a  number  of  times. 

548  The  witness'  recollection  is  that  the  machine  was  not  on 
exhibition  April  4th  at  the  spring  election. 

Witness  recalls  that  he  made  a  motion  that  16  United 
States  Standard  machines  be  placed  on  exhibition,  but  can- 
not say  whether  any  Empire  machine  was  at  the  polls  on 
April  4th,  1911. 

Witness'  recollection  is  that  there  was  an  Empire  ma- 
chine examined  by  the  experts  of  the  old  Board  and  re- 
ported upon. 

549  The  witness  thinks  the  Empire  machine  examined  by 
the  old  Board  was  not  a  9-party  x  70-key  machine,  but 
a  9-party,  50-key  machine.  ' '  My  recollection  is  that  they 
never  produced  a  9,  70,  until  the  fall  of  1911.  I  am  not — 
I  could  not  be  positive  about  that."    "I  do  not  know." 

The  witness  thinks'  that  the  machine  examined  by  the 
State  Board  on  March  20th,  was  a  9,  50  machine.  The 
State  Board  certificate  does  not  show  this. 

550  Mr.  Deneen  reads  paragraph  7  of  the  State  Board 
certificate  as  follows: 

"It  has  the  capacity  to  contain  the  tickets  of  9  political 
parties  with  the  names  of  all  candidates  thereon,  together 
with  all  other  propositions  to  be  voted  on,  except  that  it  is 
so  constructed  that  the  names  of  all  candidates  for  presi- 
dential electors  will  not  occur  thereon,  but  in  lieu  thereof 
one  ballot  label  in  each  party  column,  or  row,  shall  contain 
only  the  words  "Presidential  Electors"  preceded  by  the 
party  name,  each  vote  registered  for  said  ballot  label  to 
be  counted  as  a  vote  for  each  of  such  party  candidates  for 
presidential  electors." 

The  certificate  says  nothing  about  70  keys. 

551  The  experts  employed  by  Judge  Owens  were  not  ap- 
pointed by  Judge  Owens  until  June. 

The  witness  has  refreshed  his  recollection  since  yester- 
day and  says  it  was  an  Empire  machine  Judge  Owens' 
experts  examined.    Witness  thinks  that  they  so  certified. 

552-3  As  to  the  number  of  keys  and  kind  of  machines  certifi- 
cate will  speak  for  itself. 

553-4  Witness  infers  from  the  fact  that  the  State  Board  of 
voting  machine  commissioners  examined  an  Empire  ma- 
chine in  March,  that  Judge  Owens'  experts  examined  the 
same  machine  in  June.  Witness  also  has  an  independent 
recollection  that  the  machine  that  was  under  investiga- 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  105 

tion  and  discussion  for  weeks  by  the  board  and  which  was 
installed  in  the  Rand-McNally  building  was  an  Empire 
machine. 

555  Witness  thinks  that  the  probability  is  very  strong  that 
the  machine  examined  in  March  by  the  State  Board  of 
Voting  Machine  Commissioners  remained  until  June  and 
was  examined  by  Judge  Owens '  experts. 

Witness  thinks  that  the  machine  examined  by  the  State 
Board  and  by  Judge  Owens '  experts  was  a  9-party,  50-key 
machine. 

Witness  thinks  that  the  Election  Commission  experts 
did  not  examine  any  other  kind  of  machine  for  the  Em- 
pire Company  before  July  21st,  1911,  and  that  witness 
didn't  see  any  machine  submitted  by  the  Empire  Com- 
pany other  than  a  9-party,  50-key  machine. 

556  The  9-party,  70-key  machine  was  submitted  by  the  Em- 
pire Company  some  time  after  the  signing  of  the  contract, 
witness  thinks  "well  into  the  fall." 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  December  18th,  1911,  at  the  Sher- 
man House? 

"A.  Oh,  it  might  have  been  here  some  weeks  before 
that,  I  cannot  tell,  but  it  was  after  the  signing  of  the  con- 
tract." 

Witness  cannot  say  whether  between  June  1st  and  July 
21st,  1911,  he  saw  the  9-party,  50-key  machine  from  the 
Empire  Company;  that  it  was  in  possession  of  the  board. 
His  recollection  is  that  "After  the  examination  the  ma- 
chine remained  in  the  City  Hall  here  for  some  time,  how 
long  I  do  not  know. " 

"Q.  Will  you  say  that  you  saw  the  Empire  machine 
that  your  board  of  experts  recommended  to  you  and  upon 
which  the  contract  was  made,  before  the  contract  was 
made  ?  A.  Why,  yes ;  we  saw  the  one  that  was  installed 
at  the  Rand-McNally  lauilding. 

"Q.  The  one  they  recommended  to  you,  your  own  ex- 
perts; did  you  see  that  machine?  A.  The  one  they  re- 
ported on? 

"Q.  The  one  they  reported  on,  then.  Did  you  see  it? 
A.    Why,  yes,  sir,  many  times. 

"Q.  Now,  was  that  a  9-party,  50-key  machine?  A. 
That  is  my  recollection. 

"Q.    Now,  you  say  the  number  was  what  on  that  ma- 
chine?   A.    I  would  have  to  refer  you  to  the  certificate 
there ;  we  have  had  that  just  now. 
557-559    "Q.     Oh,  no.     What  you  saw;  not  what  the  State 


106  Voting  Machine  Number  Missing. 

Commissioners  saw.  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it  my- 
self. 

' '  Q.  The  State  certifies  to  what  they  examined,  but  you 
have  no  recollection?    A.    No. 

"Q.  Did  you  examine  the  plate  on  it  showing  where  it 
was  made,  this  9-party,  50-key  machine? '  A.  I  don't  think 
I  did,  sir. 

' '  Q.  Was  not  the  serial  number  under  4000  on  that  ma- 
chine you  saw,  that  9-party,  50-key  machine  ?  A.  I  could 
not  tell  you  of  my  own  recollection. 

"Q.  Was  not  the  plate  on  it — did  not  the  plate  on  it 
contain  the  statement,  'Made  at  Rochester,  New  York'? 
A.  I  don't  recollect  at  all ;  I  don't  think  that  I  ever  looked 
at  the  plate. 

"Q.    Or  the  number?    A.    Or  the  number. 

"Q.  So  your  correction  as  to  the  number  stated  yester- 
day refers  to  what  the  State  Voting  Commission  saw? 
Not  what  you  saw,  or  your  board  saw?  A.  No,  that  is 
not  the  correct  statement. 

' '  Q.  State  it  correctly,  then.  A.  I  have  a  very  strong 
recollection  that  we  had  an  Empire  machine  installed 
probably  in  the  early  part  of  March ;  it  might  have  been  in 
February ;  at  the  Rand-McNally  building ;  that  it  remained 
there  for  weeks  and  that  a  great  many  people  examined 
it ;  and  that  I  frequently  examined  it ;  and  that  it  was  an 
Empire  machine ;  and  that  that  was  the  machine  that  was 
eventually  presented  here  in  June  for  the  examination  of 
the  county  experts.    That  is  my  recollection. 

"Q.  And  that  was  the  sample  machine  upon  which  the 
contract  was  awarded?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  And  that  was  the  only  one  you  saw  until  Decem- 
ber ?  A.  Oh,  there  was  a  number ;  I  would  not  say  that 
we  got — they  had  not  Empire  machines,  as  I  recall  it, 
sufficiently  built  for  this  voting  machine  test  that  we  in- 
tended to  have  at  the  polls.  They  supplied  United  States 
Standard  Machines,  of  which,  as  I  recall  it,  there  were  16 
in  number,  which,  as  I  testified  the  other  day,  are  almost 
identical  with  the  Empire  machine.  I  think  there  were 
16  of  them;  but  there  was  an  Empire  machine  here  on 
examination,  I  feel  sure  of  that. 

' '  Q.  And  that  was  the  one  upon  which  you  based  your 
judgment  and  made  the  contract?  A.  We  based  it  on  the 
judgment  of  the  experts. 

"  Q.    On  that  machine  ?    A.    On  that  machine. 

"Q.    Fif ty -key,  9-party  machine  ?    A.    Yes,  sir. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  107 

"Q.  You  don't  remember  where  it  was  made,  or  its 
number?    A.    I  don't  remember  from  the  machine  itself. 

' '  Q.  That  is  what  I  thought.  When  you  state, '  We  ex- 
amined it  neai'ly  every  day, '  I  notice  you  go  back  to  that, 
you  did  not  mean  that  the  machine  was  discussed  or  ex- 
amined by  the  board  officially!  That  means  you  and  Mr. 
Kellermann,  or  you  and  Mr.  Stuart  ?  A.  Mr.  Czarnecki, 
and  every  one. 

"Q.  In  the  board  meetings,  while  you  were  together 
officially?    A.    No. 

''Q.  While  you  were  with  Mr.  Czarnecki?  A.  It  was 
standing  in  a  room  adjoining  the  Commissioner's  room 
and  frequently,  sometimes  two  or  three  times  a  day,  we 
were  out  there  looking  at  it.  I  say  'we,'  I  could  not  say 
precisely,  but  it  was  a  great  many  people  coming  and 
going  and  the  machine  men  were  demonstrating,  explain- 
ing it,  and  that  continued  for  a  great  many  days. ' ' 

561  Witness  made  a  motion  that  16  United  States  Standard 
machines  be  placed  in  different  polling  booths  at  the 
spring  election,  1911.  He  did  not  make  the  motion  after 
consultation  with  the  Empire  Company  and  did  not  con- 
sult with  the  company  about  anything  first  nor  last.  Mr. 
Barr,  agent  for  the  Empire  Company,  had  suggested,  "I 
heard  from  the  clerk,  or  someone  else,"  that  the  Empire 
Company  could  not  supply  a  sufficient  number  of  ma- 
chines in  time  to  demonstrate  and  it  was  suggested  that 
the  company  could  supply  United  States  Standard  ma- 
chines. Witness  thought  it  Avould  be  well  to  use  them  to 
educate  the  people  and  make  the  sentiment  favorable  to 
them. 

562  The  witness  does  not  think  the  Election  Commission 
had  a  Standard  machine  on  exhibition,  at  the  Kand-Mc- 
Nally  building.  Thinks  the  Empire  machine  was  at  the 
Eand-McNally  building  in  February  and  that  there  was  a 
demonstrator  there  every  day.  The  Empire  machine  at 
the  Eand-McNally  building  was  not  used  at  the  polls, 
probably  because  the  Election  Commissioners  were  ex- 
amining it.  Witness  does  not  remember  what  the  reason 
was. 

563  The  witness  has  found  since  yesterday,  and  produces  a 
letter  of  the  American  Voting  Machine  Company.  Wit- 
ness did  testify  that  this  company  had  asked  for  a  contin- 
uance and  that  he  had  seen  a  letter  of  this  import  in  the 
minutes.    The  letter  is  read  by  witness  as  follows : 

Letter  addressed  to  Isaac  N.  Powell,  clerk,  Chicago,  lUi- 


108  Letter  of  American  Standard  Company. 

nois:  "Dear  Sir:  I  am  writing  to  inquire  if  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  have  closed  the  contract  with 
any  voting  machine  company  for  furnishing  voting  ma- 
chines for  the  City  of  Chicago.  I  received  the  printed 
specifications  for  bids  on  the  contract,  but  was  not  able  at 
this  time  to  demonstrate  my  machine.  I  enclose  herein 
prospectus  of  the  American  Standard  Voting  Machine, 

563-4  patented  and  manufactured  by  myself,  which  I  ask  you 
to  get  before  the  board  for  examination.  This  machine 
has  been  exhibited  in  competition  with  every  voting  ma- 
chine on  the  market  today,  but  after  a  thorough  examina- 
tion and  test  of  the  different  machines,  the  City  of  To- 
peka  awarded  their  contract  for  25  machines  to  the  Ameri- 
can Standard.  The  prospectus  shows  a  machine  having 
only  50  keys,  but  it  may  be  manufactured  with  as  high  as 
100  keys.  The  cumulative  is  not  shown  in  the  prespectus 
also,  but  if  this  machine  proved  satisfactory  to  the  City  of 
Chicago  the  machine  can  be  manufactured  for  cumulative. 
I  would  be  glad  to  know  if  Chicago  is  still  in  the  market 
for  voting  machines,  and  if  so  I  would  be  glad  to  take  the 
matter  up  with  the  board.  Please  let  me  hear  from  you  in 
regard  to  this.  Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     J.  P.  Painter." 
Witness  also  reads  from  the  minutes  as  follows : 

564  "The  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Board  of  Election  in- 
formed the  American  Standard  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany, per  Mr.  Painter,  that  no  contract  had  as  yet  been 
awarded  by  the  board  for  the  purchase  of  voting  machines 
in  this  city,  and  that  the  examination  of  voting  machines 
as  provided  for  in  the  specifications,  issued  by  the  board 
January  15, 1909,  was  in  progress,  and  that  it  would  prob- 
ably be  two  weeks  before  the  same  would  be  completed, 
and  that  the  board  was  willing  to  investigate  any  voting 
machine  that  might  be  submitted  for  its  attention  at  its 
ofiices,  160  Adams  street,  Chicago,  Illinois." 

Witness  thinks  the  American  Voting  Machine    letter 
equivalent  to  a  request  for  delay. 

566       Mr.  Whittaker  read  from  the  minutes  of  the  meeting 
of  July  3d,  letter  addressed  to  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners by  L.  E.  Winslow  as  follows : 
"To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of 

the  City  of  Chicago,  Ills. 
* '  Gentlemen : — 

566-569  "The  undersigned,  The  Winslow  Voting  Machine 
Co.,  being  a  bidder  for  the  contract  of  supplying  voting 


I 


Protest  of  the  Winslow  Company.  109 

machines  to  the  hoard  according  to  specifications  issued 
by  the  hoard  on  April  27th,  1911,  herehy  enters  a  protest 
against  the  action  of  said  board  on  June  30th,  1911,  in 
adopting  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  for  the  following 
reasons : 

"1st.  The  machine  adopted  was  not  a  legal  machine 
under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  John  E.  Owens, 
and  the  members  of  this  board  knew  at  the  time  of  adop- 
tion that  said  machine  was  not  a  legal  machine  and  could 
not  be  legally  purchased. 

"2nd.  Said  action  was  taken  behind  closed  doors  and 
all  competing  voting  machine  men  were  excluded  from  the 
meeting  of  the  hoard  when  said  action  was  taken. 

"3rd.  John  E.  Owens,  County  Judge,  who  has  dictated 
the  adoption  of  the  Empire  machine,  has  never  even 
looked  at  or  examined  the  Winslow  machine  which  has 
been  in  your  office  continually  since  the  latter  part  of 

566  March,  1911,  and  we  are  reliably  informed  that  he  has 
never  examined  any  other  machine  which  was  competing 
with  the  Empire  for  this  contract. 

"4th.  In  making  this  selection  John  E.  Owens  has  ap- 
parently relied  solely  upon  the  opinion  of  the  three  so- 
called  experts  who  devoted  less  than  three  hours  to  the 
examination  of  the  Empire  machine.  Said  experts,  we 
are  reliably  informed,  have  had  no  former  experience 
Avliatever  with  voting  machine  construction,  and  their 
report  made  to  Judge  Owens  clearly  proves  their  utter 
incompetency  and  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  subject  upon 
which  they  endeavor  to  pass  judgment. 

"5th.  The  report  of  these  so-called  experts,  W.  L. 
Abbott,  Paul  M.  Chamberlain  and  William  Wooley,  made 
to  Judge  Owens,  is  filled  out  with  contradictions  from 
beginning  to  end,  and  is,  we  believe,  purposely  drawn  to 
injure  competing  machine  concerns  except  the  Empire. 
It  is  a  libelous  document  calculated  to  work  untold  injury 
to  the  business  of  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company 
and  to  the  reputation  of  its  product,  and  we  hereby  de- 
mand that  the  said  report  be  publicly  condemned  and  re- 
jected by  the  board  as  being  worthless  and  unworthy  of 
any  consideration. 

567  "6th.  The  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company's  rep- 
resentative was  required  by  the  board  to  be  present  at  the 
offices  of  the  board  daily  for  a  period  of  approximately 
one  month  for  the  purpose  of  permitting  the  board  to 
make  an  examination  of  our  machines.    Only  one  machine. 


110  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

that  of  the  International  Company,  was  so  examined,  that 
examination  covering  a  period  of  about  two  weeks  time, 
when  suddenly  for  some  yet  unexplained  cause  the  Board, 
in  a  meeting  in  which  our  representatives  were  denied  ad- 
mittance, adopted  the  Empire  Voting  Machine,  without 
any  examination  whatever  being  made  by  the  board  of  our 
machine. 

"Throughout  this  entire  contest  all  common  rules  of 
fairness,  honesty  and  decency  have  been  abolished  by  the 
judge  of  the  County  Court,  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners and  the  Chief  Clerk  of  the  board. 

"7th.  The  Empire  machine  was  adopted  by  the  board 
without  any  tests  being  made  to  ascertain  its  adaptability 
to  Chicago  elections,  and  without  the  knowledge  that  the 
Empire  machines  have  absolutely  failed  to  work,  and  had 
to  be  taken  out  of  recent  elections  in  Indiana. 

"8tli.  The  resolution  passed  by  the  board  at  said  meet- 
ing declares  that  'Whereas,  voting  machines  have  been 
tested  in  voting  at  actual  election  in  1904,  1905,  1907  and 
1911,  with  highly  satisfactory  results,'  this  is  very  mis- 

568  leading  inasmuch  as  the  Empire  machine  has  never  been 
used  in  a  Chicago  election.    The  Empire  Company  when 

569  given  an  opportunity  by  this  board  to  place  machines  in 
the  Chicago  election  April,  1911,  refused  to  install  Em- 
pire Voting  Machines  but  placed  16  U.  S.  Standard  Ma- 
chines in  said  election. 

"9th.  Section  18  of  the  specifications  issued  by  the 
board  requires  a  public  demonstration  of  all  machines 
prior  to  award  bid;  this  section  was  absolutely  ignored 
by  the  board  and  a  public  demonstration  was  refused  Our 
representative  when  demanded  of  the  board. 

"10th.  Other  sections  of  the  specifications  too  numer- 
ous to  mention,  together  with  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, not  having  been  complied  with,  render  the  action  of 
the  board  illegal  in  adopting  the  Empire  machines. 

"For  the  foregoing  reasons,  the  undersigned  respect- 
fully demands  that  the  board  rescind  the  action  taken  at 
the  meetings  of  the  board,  held  June  30th,  relating  to  the 
adoption  or  purchase,  or  contracting  for  voting  machines. 

"Respectfully, 
"The  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company, 
"  (Signed)    L.  R.  Winslow,  Manager. 

"Chicago,  111.,  June  13,  1911." 

570  The  Winslow  protest  was  submitted  to  the  board  and 
witness  made  a  motion  to  file  it,  and  then  he  included  in 


Protest  of  International  Company.  Ill 

his  motion  tlmt  the  protest  was  false  and  libelous  to  Judge 
Owens  and  that  it  should  not  be  put  in  the  minutes,  but 
crawled  in.    It  was  put  in  the  minutes  by  the  secretary. 
571      The  board  paid  no  attention  to  the  protest. 

From  the  minutes  of  the  same  meeting,  July  3d,  of  the 
Election  Commissioners,  the  following  communication  of 
the  International  Voting  Machine   Company  was  then 
read: 
"To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 

Chicago,  Illinois. 

"Gentlemen:    Whereas,  the  International  Voting  Ma- 

571-574     chine  Company,  acting  in  good  faith,  placed  with  this 

board  a  bid  for  voting  machines  for  the  City  of  Chicago 

in  accordance  with  the  advertisements  and  specifications 

issued  by  your  Honorable  Board,  and 

"Whereas,  in  order  to  make  such  bid  we  were  com- 
pelled to  deposit  with  the  chairman  of  this  board  a  certi- 
fied check  for  five  per  cent.  (5% )  of  the  amount  of  the  bid, 
which  in  our  case  was  fifty-four  thousand  dollars  ($54,- 
000),  and  to  prepare,  at  great  labor  and  expense,  blue 
prints  and  drawings  showing  every  part  of  our  machine, 
571  together  with  photographs,  and  printed  instructions  and 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  International  machine,  and 

"Whereas,  the  chairman  of  the  board  did  not  turn  this 
certified  check  over  to  the  Election  Board  nor  deposit  it 
with  the  Comptroller  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  as  he  had 
informed  the  Treasurer,  but  did  on  the  contrary,  cash  the 
check  and  place  the  money  in  his  own  private  banking 
account,  where  he  had  the  privilege  of  using  it  for  his 
own  personal  purposes  at  any  time  he  saw  fit,  without  so 
much  as  consulting  the  other  members  of  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners,  to  say  nothing  of  the  owners  of 
the  money,  who  were  thus  in  continual  danger  of  losing 
the  entire  amount,  and 

"Whereas,  it  has  developed  that  the  drawings,  photo- 
graphs and  blue  prints  which  were  prepared  by  us  at 
a  great  expense  for  the  supposed  enlightenment  of  the  me- 
chanical experts  of  this  board,  were  never  opened  nor 
examined  by  the  members  of  this  board  nor  by  their  me- 
573  chanical  experts  but  were  returned  to  us  in  the  original 
packages  with  the  seals  unbroken,  thereby  revealing  an 
evidence  of  bad  faith,  and 

"Whereas,  the  mechanical  experts  selected  to  examine 
the  machine,  made  a  most  superficial  examination  of  the 
International  Voting  Machine,  and  in  their  report  to  this 


112  Protest  of  International  Company. 

573  board  made  statement  relative  to  the  machines  which  are 
inconsistent,  misleading  and  false,  thereby  working  un- 
told injury  to  the  good  name  of  the  product  w^hich  has  cost 
this  company  thirteen  years  of  persistent  effort,  and  al- 
most $400,000  in  cash,  and 

"Whereas,  this  board  apparently  accepted  the  state- 
ments of  the  said  experts  at  their  face  value,  and  concur- 
ring in  that  report,  published  these  false  statements  to 
the  w^orld,  and  further  proceeded  to  purchase  voting  ma- 
chines for  the  City  of  Chicago  in  accordance  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  experts,  and  without  giving  us  a 
chance  to  be  heard,  although  our  attorney  demanded  such 
a  hearing  on  the  day  that  the  action  was  taken,  and  was 
faithfully  promised  such  a  hearing  by  the  Judge  of  the 
County  Court  of  Cook  County,  under  whose  instruction 
this  board  is  supposed  to  be  acting,  and  also  by  Commis- 
sioner Taylor,  who  agreed  to  notify  our  attorney  over  the 
phone  before  any  action  Avas  taken,  which  notices  he  neg- 
lected to  give,  and 

"Whereas,  the  specifications  issued  by  this  board  under 
the  date  of  April  27th,  1911,  made  provision  for  a  public 
hearing  and  exhibition  of  all  voting  machines  submitted 
to  this  board,  which  exhibition  was  never  held,  and 

574  "Whereas,  the  International  Voting  Machine  Company 
believes  that  the  action  of  the  experts  and  of  the  board 
itself  has  wrought  untold  injury  and  financial  loss  to  said 
International  Voting  Machine  Company, 

"Therefore,  we  demand  that  the  board  rescind  such  ac-* 
tion  as  has  already  been  taken,  reopen  the  case,  and  give 
us  an  opportunity  for  a  full  and  complete  public  hearing 
in  answer  to  the  report  of  the  experts,  and  we  notify  the 
members  of  this  board  that  unless  such  action  is  taken, 
we  will  be  compelled  to  go  into  court  to  protect  our  own 
good  name  and  property  interests. 

"International  Voting  Machine  Company, 
"RoBT.  E.  Petrie,  (Signed) 

"President. 
"E.  R.  Kelly,   (Signed) 
' '  Secretary. ' ' 

575  On  motion  of  witness  the  letter  was  filed  and  received 
no  other  consideration.  The  witness  thinks  probably  Mr. 
Hall  of  the  International  Machine  Company  was  present 
when  the  letter  was  presented. 

The  witness  cannot  say  whether  Mr.  Hall  then  made  a 
statement  that  the  seals  on  their  package  of  blue-prints, 


Czarnecki  Moves  to  Hear  Protests.  113 

drawings,  photographs  and  specifications  had  not  been 
broken  open  and  that  the  package  had  not  been  opened. 
Does  not  know  the  fact  that  the  package  had  not  been 
opened. 

Witness  cannot  recall  whether  the  seals  on  the  Tri- 
umph package  of  blue-prints  and  so  forth  were  broken  or 
on  those  of  any  machine.  These  packages  were  turned 
over  to  the  experts. 

576  "Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Let  me  refresh  your  recollection. 
On  July  1st,  after  the  protest  had  been  made — is  this  a 
proper  recital  of  your  attitude!  In  the  minutes,  Com- 
missioner Taylor  stated  'that  the  resolution  which  you 
had  made  for  the  award  to  the  Empire  Machine  Com- 
pany, gave  the  Empire  Company  no  legal  right  and  special 
benefit;  that  it  was  a  notice  that  the  board  was  ready  to 
enter  into  the  question  upon  the  production  of  a  sample 
machine  of  a  proper  character;  that  if  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company  does  not  comply  within  a  reason- 
able length  of  time  with  this  notice,  that  the  board  will 
consider  that  everything  is  off  and  that  everything  will 
then  commence  anew'? 

"A.    Yes,  sir,  I  think  that  is  correct. 

"Q.  Then  the  further  recital:  'We  have  given  them 
nothing  except  the  notice  that  we  are  ready  to  go  ahead 
when  they  furnish  the  sample  which  meets  our  require- 
ments'?   A.    Yes,  I  think  that  is  correct." 

577  The  following  statement  was  then  read  from  page  211 
of  the  Election  Commissioners '  report  of  meeting  of  July 
1st: 

' '  I  hereby  move  that  the  action  of  the  board  on  last  Fri- 
day in  adopting  by  a  majority  vote  the  resolution  of  Com- 
missioner Taylor's  with  reference  to  notifying  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company  that  its  machine  is  preferred 
and  that  the  board  is  ready  to  enter  into  a  formal  contract 
when  the  sample  machine  is  found  to  be  in  accordance 
with  the  requirements  and  specifications,  be  and  is  hereby 
rescinded  so  that  the  three  companies  complaining  and 
protesting  have  opportunity  to  reply  to  the  experts'  re- 
port ;  and  that  the  entire  subject  matter  may  be  reopened 
and  begun  anew. 

"I  move  that  we  rescind  the  board's  action  of  last  Fri- 
day upon  the  voting  machines  and  that  we  now  enter  the 
reopening  of  the  whole  proposition  of  voting  machines." 

578  This  motion  was  made ;  the  witness  cannot  say  whether 
it  was  discussed,  but  it  received  no  second. 


114  Czarnecki  Motions  Receive  No  Second. 

The  following  motion  made  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
at  the  same  meeting,  July  3d,  was  then  read  into  the  rec- 
ord: 

"Resolved,  that  the  time  limit  for  the  delivery  by  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  to  this  board  of  the 
sample  machine  of  nine  party  columns,  containing  70 
names  in  each  column,  and  containing  keys  for  voting  upon 
12  propositions,  be  and  it  is  hereby  fixed  for  October  3d, 
1911,  on  or  before  which  date  said  sample  machine  is  to  be 
submitted  and  delivered." 

The  motion  was  made,  but  the  witness  cannot  say  with- 
out looking  whether  it  was  carried  unanimously. 

579  The  witness  does  not  know. 

The  following  motion  was  then  made  at  the  same  meet- 
ing by  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  and  was  read  into  the 
record : 

' '  I  move  that  the  failure  on  the  part  of  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company  on  or  before  October  3rd,  1911,  to 
deliver  the  sample  machine  be  hereby  declared  to  be  suffi- 
cient notice  per  se,  that  all  negotiations  between  the  com- 
pany and  this  board  are  at  an  end  and  that  an  entirely  new 
deal  with  reference  to  voting  machines  must  be  entered 
into." 

The  witness  examines  the  minutes  and  says:  "I  think 
that  is  correct."  Witness  thinks  the  motion  did  not  re- 
ceive a  second. 

The  following  motion  made  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
was  read  into  the  record : 

' '  I  move  that  the  final  test  upon  the  sample  machine  be 
hereby  declared  to  be  the  binding  test,  and  that  it  will  be 
a  test  by  the  experts,  by  the  public,  by  this  board  and  by 
civic  bodies,  and  further,  that  the  final  test  will  determine 

580  whether  or  not  any  installments  of  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  is  to  be  purchased,  and  that  this  motion  be  hereby 
declared  and  ordered  to  take  precedence  over  any  action 
by  this  board  heretofore,  which  might  be  understood  in 
any  wise  as  inconsistent  with  this  motion." 

Witness  thinks  the  motion  was  made  and  that  it  did  not 
receive  a  second. 

The  witness  cannot  recall  whether  Mr.  Winslow  at  that 
meeting  of  the  board  asked  the  Election  Commissioners 
whether  or  not  a  public  examination  had  been  held  in 
compliance  with  Number  18  of  the  specifications. 

The  following  motion  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  at 
the  same  meeting  was  then  read  into  the  record : 


Further  Motions  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki.        115 

580-1  "I  move  that  this  board  hereby  require  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company  to  deposit  in  cash  or  certified 
checks  with  this  board,  the  sum  of  $25,000  to  guarantee 
the  production  of  its  sample  machine  of  nine  party  col- 
umns and  70  keys  in  each  column  by  October  3,  1911,  as 
an  evidence  of  good  faith,  and  that  said  $25,000  shall  be 
forfeited  and  turned  over  to  the  City  Treasurer  as  dam- 
ages to  the  City  and  as  a  compensation  or  bonus  for  the 
exclusive  right  exercised  from  this  date  until  October  3, 
1911,  by  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  in  barring 
other  machines  and  other  voting  machines  from  sending 
their  devices  to  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  or  from  installing  their  devices  in  the 
City  of  Chicago  for  use  at  elections  and  primaries ;  that 
upon  the  delivery  of  the  sample  machine  within  the  speci- 
fied time,  the  $25,000  deposited  in  accordance  with  this 
motion  is  to  be  returned  to  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company. ' ' 

The  witness  thinks  the  motion  was  made  and  received 
no  second. 

581  "Q.  Now,  if  you  will  look  at  page  214  (of  minutes),  the 
question  was  whether  Mr.  Winslow  asked  the  board,  or 
Mr.  Kellermann,  who  was  present  at  the  board,  if  he  knew 
of  any  public  examination  held  under  Section  18  of  the 
specifications.    A.    Yes,  sir. 

582  *'Q.  I  will  ask  that  question  in  regard  to  the  minutes? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Kellerman,  president  of  the  board, 
reply,  'I  know  of  none'!    A.    Yes,  sir." 

The  witness  also  stated  at  said  meeting  of  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners,  as  follows: 

' '  Commissioner  Taylor.  Mr.  Winslow,  the  members  of 
the  board  have  made  a  satisfactory  and  exhaustive  exam- 
ination of  these  machines.  So  far  as  public  examinations 
were  concerned,  the  public  have  had  opportunity  at  elec- 
tions in  the  past  years  to  get  acquainted  with  voting  ma- 
chines and  anyone  applying  for  an  opportunity  to  exam- 
ine the  machines  was  afforded  that  opportunity  without 
question  by  this  board  or  the  Chief  Clerk." 

583  Mr.  Winslow  asked  how  much  time  had  been  spent  in 
making  an  exhaustive  examination  of  this  machine.  Wit- 
ness replied  three  or  four  days,  and  when  Mr.  Winslow 
called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  was  out  of  town  the 
first  two  or  three  days  the  witness  said  that  he  (the  wit- 


116  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

ness)  had.  delegated  Mr.  Kelly  to  act  as  his  proxy.  Mr. 
Kelly  is  Assistant  Chief  Clerk. 
583-4  "A.  One  moment,  let  me  answer  that  fully;  in  a  dis- 
cussion, which  will  be  found  in  the  minutes,  among  the 
voting  machine  agents,  in  which  they  were  all  recorded, 
I  believe,  as  present,  and  after  much  conference  and  de- 
termination as  to  how  the  expert  examination  should  be 
conducted,  I  finally  introduced  a  resolution,  that  the  ex- 
perts appointed  by  the  County  Court,  the  members  of  the 
board,  and  in  case  of  the  necessary  absence  of  any  member 
of  the  board,  a  proxy  appointed  by  him  should  have  ad- 
mission to  that  room,  it  wa^  eventually — it  was  objected 
that  the  proxy  ought  not  to  be  some  possible  hostile  agent 
opposed  to  the  machine  that  was  on  examination,  and 
finally  I  suggested,  or  Mr.  Kellermann,  I  have  forgotten, 
that  it  should  be  some  unprejudiced  person,  should  be  an 
employe  of  the  office  who  would  report  to  the  absent  com- 
missioner what  was  said  or  what  was  done  about  the  ma- 
chine. I  was  called  away  to  Indiana  by  the  sickness  of  my 
sister  and  I  was  gone  three  or  four  days  necessarily ;  dur- 
ing that  time  I  asked  Mr.  Kelly  to  represent  me  in  the 
room  and  take  notes  of  anything  he  thought  was  impor- 
tant in  the  way  of  a  discovery  of  any  of  the  machines,  a 
discovery  of  any  weakness,  and  to  make  a  note  of  it,  and  I 
asked  him  to  call  my  attention  to  it  when  I  got  back. " 

Witness  thinks  the  Winslow  statement,  "like  most  of 
Mr.  Winslow 's  statements,"  tended  to  make  out  a  case. 
Witness  had  been  going  over  the  Winslow  machine  in  the 

585  Rand-McNally  building  a  great  many  times  and  knew  a 
great  deal  about  it  and  what  the  experts  thought  about  it. 
Mr.  Winslow 's  demonstrators  were  demonstrating  his 
machine  there. 

"Q.  Who  was  demonstrating  his  machine  to  show  up 
the  weak  spots?  A.  I  don't  know  that  anyone  was  but 
the  experts.  The  experts,  under  our  arrangement  ap- 
pointed by  Judge  Owens,  had  the  machines  in  what  we 
called  the  '  hearing  room, '  the  particular  agent  of  the  ma- 
chine being  examined  at  the  time  was  present,  whoever 
it  was ;  if  it  was  Winslow 's  machine,  Winslow  would  be 
there;  and  then  the  Chief  Clerk  and  the  attorney  and 
members  of  the  board,  and  in  the  case  of  the  absence  a 
proxy  of  the  board,  those  were  the  persons  present  in  the 
room  during  the  examination." 

586  The  witness  does  not  recall  that  Mr.  Kelly  made  any 
report  regarding  what  he  observed  as  proxy  for  the  wit- 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  117 

ness.    He  might  have  made  a  verbal  one.    Nothing  partic- 
ular developed. 

"Mr.  McEwEN  (reading  from  minutes).  'Commissioner. 
Taylor  (addressing  Mr.  Kelly) :  Were  you  present,  Mr. 
Kelly,  during  my  absence  from  the  city,  at  the  examina- 
tion of  the  machine  by  the  expert?  Mr.  Kelly  replying 
declared  that  he  was. '  "   "  '  Mr.  Winslow :    Commissioner 

587  Taylor,  were  you  and  Mr.  Kelly  both  present  at  the  exam- 
ination together?    Commissioner  Taylor :    I  think  not.'" 

At  the  same  meeting  the  minutes  state  that  Mr.  Hall 
made  the  following  statement  to  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners : 

' '  I  wish  to  state  that  there  was  no  public  examination  of 
the  machines  in  accordance  with  the  specifications.  Fur- 
ther, that  the  experts  did  not  go  thoroughly  into  the 
mechanism  of  our  machine.  That  they  did  not  spend  suf- 
ficient time  to  know  the  things  in  its  favor  or  its  shortcom- 
ings, and  that  while  all  the  other  voting  machine  men  were 
examined  on  the  Sunday  when  the  experts  completed  their 
examinations,  no  one  of  our  company  was  notified  to  be 
present  and  no  one  of  our  company  was  on  that  day  exam- 
ined by  those  experts.  In  speaking  plainly,  the  examina- 
tion was  not  only  unfair,  to  us,  but  the  report  was  libelous 
and  incorrect  and  we  shall  endeavor  to  show  it  up  in  its 
proper  form  in  court." 

The  witness  thinks  Mr.  Hall  made  the  statement. 

588  After  Mr.  Hall's  statement  the  Election  Commission- 
ers' minutes  show  Mr.  Kellermann  made  the  following 
statement : 

"Commissioner  Kellermann  stated  for  the  information 
of  the  voting  machine  men  that  in  voting  for  Commis- 
sioner Taylor's  motion  he  did  so  upon  the  findings  and 
recommendations  of  the  three  experts  appointed  by  Judge 
Owens,  that  it  was  this  report  of  experts  which  guided 
him." 

Witness  thinks  this  is  correct. 

Witness  based  his  attitude  upon  the  findings  of  the  ex- 
pert and  his  own  personal  examination  of  the  machines ; 
had  been  examining  the  voting  machine  subject  for  ten 
years. 
590  The  following  communication  addressed  by  the  commis- 
sion of  experts  appointed  by  Judge  Owens ,  to  Judge 
Owens,  was  then  read  into  the  record : 


118  Report  of  Owens  Experts. 

"Hon.  John  E.  Owens, 

Judge  of  the  County  Court, 
590-592     County  Building,  Chicago,  111. 
"Sir:— 

"Your  commission  of  experts  which  formerly  inspected 
and  reported  on  the  four  voting  machines  for  which  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  received  bids,  having 
since  examined  a  70-key,  9-party  machine  built  by  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  and  finds  as  follows : 

"The  70-key,  9-party  machine  differs  from  the  50-key, 
7-party  machine  in  the  following  particulars : 

' '  The  70-key,  9-party  machines  are  provided  with  a  re- 
leasing lever  attachment  which  must  be  thrown  before  it 
is  possible  to  operate  the  individual  candidate  keys. 

' '  The  50-key,  7-party  Empire  Voting  Machine  formerly 
examined  did  not  have  this  releasing  lever  attachment 
and  we  are  told  that  the  70-key,  9-party  machine  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company  proposes  to  furnish  will 
not  have  this  attachment,  which  attachment  your  commis- 
sion considers  undesirable. 

' '  In  the  70-key,  9-party  machine  the  provision  for  inde- 
pendent voting  by  written  ballots  on  the  paper  roll  is  iden- 
tical with  the  arrangement  on  the  50-key,  7-party  ma- 
chines, except  that  in  the  70-key,  9-party  machine  the  slots 
in  the  casing  through  which  the  voter  obtains  access  to  the 
paper  roll  are  one-half  inch  shorter  than  they  are  in  the 
50-key,  7-party  machine ;  also  the  shaft  on  which  the  roll 
of  paper  is  carried  is  provided  with  a  releasing  attachment 
so  that  when  the  machine  is  used  for  exhibition  purposes, 
the  roll  may  be  disconnected. 

"Your  commission  recommends  that  slots  of  ample 
length  for  independent  voting  be  provided  and  that  the 
releasing  attachment  on  the  shaft  which  carries  the  paper 
roll  be  omitted;  thus  making  the  design  of  the  70-key, 
9-party  machine  conform  in  this  respect  to  the  design  of 
the  50-key,  7-party  machine,  formerly  examined. 

"Your  commission  finds  that  the  mechanical  principles 
of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  are  applicable  to  a  machine 
of  70-key,  or  of  100  keys,  or  of  double  that  number. 

"Your  commission  did  not  have  facilities  for  weighing 
the  machine  and  therefore  is  unable  to  state  of  its  own 
knowledge  what  the  weight  actually  is. 

"Respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)    W.  L.  Abbott, 

Paul  M.  Chamberlain, 
William  Wolley." 


Csarnecki  Moves  for  Sample  of  Empire  Machine.      119 

The  minutes  do  not  show  the  date  of  this  letter,  but  it 
was  considered  before  the  meeting  of  July  21st.  The  wit- 
ness wishes  to  correct  his  previous  statement,  ' '  That  the 
9-party,  70-key  machine  was  not  produced  until  some  time 

593  along  in  the  fall. ' '    That  was  evidently  an  error  of  recol- 
'      lection. 

594  The  report  on  the  70-key  machine  must  have  been  made 
previous  to  July  21st  and  some  time  before  the  contract 
was  signed  on  July  25th. 

595  "Q.  Let  us  see  if  I  cannot  make  the  confusion  worse 
confounded:  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fourth  para- 
graph of  this  letter :  '  The  50-key,  7-party  Empire  Voting 
Machine,  etc'  This  says,  'The  one  they  propose  to  sub- 
mit'; they  had  not  submitted  it,  had  they!  So  you  have  to 
change —   A.    I  may  be — I  am  not  at  all  sure. " 

Chief  Clerk  Stuart  said  that  he  would  bring  in  the  letter 
of  the  experts  to  Judge  Owens. 

596  The  following  motion  made  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
at  the  meeting  at  which  the  letter  was  submitted  to  the 
board  was  then  read  into  the  record : 

"Whereas,  a  sample  machine  submitted  is  not  the  sam- 
ple of  the  device  which  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany proposes  to  furnish  to  this  board  as  indicated  by  the 
report  of  W.  L.  Abbott,  Paul  M.  Chamberlain,  and  Wm. 
Wooley  today,  but  contains  a  releasing  lever  which  the 
machine  formerly  submitted  did  not  have  and  which  re- 
leasing lever  upon  the  sample  machine  submitted  the 
three  experts  consider  to  be  undesirable ;  and  further,  the 
experts  themselves  point  out  that  the  present  slots  for 
independent  voting  are  not  of  sufficient  size.  Therefore, 
be  it 

"Resolved,  by  this  board,  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  still  has  nearly 
more  than  two  months'  time  within  which  to  submit  the 
sample  machine  of  the  identical  construction  that  the 
company  proposes  to  furnish  to  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  that  this  board  here  defers  any  further 
action  in  the  premises  until  the  device  which  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company  proposes  to  furnish  is  actually 
submitted  to  the  board. 

* '  Submitted  by  Anthony  Czarnecki. ' ' 

"Friday,  July  21st,  1911." 

This  motion  was  made  and  received  no  second. 

' '  Q.  Why  was  it  you  were  unwilling  to  wait  until  you  had 
a  sample  machine  by  which  all  other  machines  should  be 


120  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

597  judged  before  you  would  enter  into  a  contract  with  liim? 
A.  The  reason  was  that  we  had  provided  in  the  contract 
that  unless  they  produced  a  machine  of  that  kind  and  that 
capacity  and  character,  why,  we  would  not  proceed  with 
the  contract,  that  was  a  condition  precedent,  and  to  have 
waited  until  the  machine  was  actually  produced  with  the 
doubt  and  uncertainty  that  would  have  been  resultant  in 
the  mind  of  the  company  might  have  greatly  delayed  the 
actual  purchase  and  installation  of  the  machines  which 
we  contemplated  running  over  a  period  of  two  years  and 
six  months  and  would  about  carry  us  through  the  term  of 
Judge  Owens. 

' '  Q.  Doctor,  did  you  think  it  was  more  of  a  businesslike 
policy  to  have  the  doubt  and  uncertainty  discussed  after 
you  had  made  a  contract,  or  to  have  the  doubt  and  uncer- 
tainty cleared  up  before  you  entered  into  a  contract  with 
the  voting  machine  company?  A.  If  the  contract  was 
sufficiently  guarded  so  as -to  impose  no  obligation  upon 
the  board  until  that  condition  precedent  had  been  thor- 
oughly fulfilled  I  considered  there  was  no  peril  about  it. 
That  was  the  understanding,  that  they  were  to  produce 
the  70-key  machine  here  which  would  be  examined  by  the 
same  experts  and  submitted  to  the  board  and  that  we  were 
not — if  they  were  not  able  to  complete  the  agreement, 
what  they  had  agreed  to  produce,  why,  everything  would 
be  off. 

Q.  And  the  purport  of  the  resolution  of  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  would  be  to  have  them  produce  the  identical  ma-, 
chine  before,  so  that  if  any  doubts  arose  there  would  be  no 
grounds  for  litigation  or  doubt  by  the  board  f  A.  Yes,  I 
think  so. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  May  I  suggest  that  the  remarks  of  Com- 
missioner Taylor  immediately  following  be  read  f  I  would 
like  to  have  them  read. 

Mr.  Deneen.    I  think  the  Judge  meant  all  right. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    You  have  cross-examined  him  on  them. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  have  not  finished,  he  is  giving  other  rea- 
sons than  are  in  the  report,  I  want  to  see  if  they  agree. 

598  That  is  why  I  examined  him.  We  will  have  it  now  if  you 
want  it,  I  think  it  is  all  right,  it  is  not  very  important. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  did  not  intend  to  interfere,  I  waited 
until  I  thought  you  were  entirely  through  on  the  subject ; 
I  wanted  to  put  it  in  so  as  to  save  me  the  trouble  of  put- 
ting it  in. 


Owens'  ExpeHs  Report  Defects.  121 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  was  going  to  put  it  in  after  he  gave  his 
reasons  in  this  connection.    I  will  read  it : 

"Commissioner  Taylor.  I  wish  to  make  a  motion  and 
preface  it  with  this  remark :  '  The  two  express  exceptions 
noted  by  the  experts  in  which  the  new  70-key  machine  dif- 
fers from  the  old  type  were  examined  by  me  very  early 
yesterday  morning,  as  soon  as  I  came  to  know  of  it.  I  con- 
ferred with  the  experts  and  with  the  machine  men  about  it 
and  I  am  satisfied  that  the  two  differences  are  immaterial 
in  their  nature,  can  be  easily  removed  without  in  any  way 
affecting  the  value  and  practicability  of  the  machine,  and 
I  ask  our  attorney  to  incorporate  in  the  purchase  contract 
conditions  to  that  effect,  in  other  words,  the  consensus  of 
that  is  that  the  finished  machine  shall  be  exactly  identical 
with  the  one  submitted  except  that  it  will  contain  instead 
of  50  keys,  70  keys  and  instead  of  7  party  columns,  9  party 
columns.  The  provision  has  been  put  in  the  proposed 
contract.'  " 

599  That  is  what  you  said? 

A.     Probably,  I  think  that  is  right. 

Q.  So  you  had  a  machine  before  you  of  7  party  col- 
umns, 50  keys?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  You  thought  it  was  better  to  put  that  in  the  contract 
and  sign  the  contract  then  than  to  go  on  with  all  the  doubts, 
uncertainties  and  disagreements  betw^een  the  board  and 
the  parties,  and  have  those  all  cleared  up,  before  you  went 
into  any  legal  obligation  that  might  bring  no  end  of  trou- 
ble to  you,  lawsuits  and  otherwise  ?  A.  I  thought  then,  it 
is  my  recollection  now  that  I  was  perfectly  satisfied  that 
the  Empire  Company  would  comply  with  every  detail  of 
that  contract,  that  it  would  be  to  their  great  interest  to  do 
so,  that  in  any  event  if  they  did  not,  the  prerequisite  condi- 
tions named  in  the  contract  would  abundantly  protect  us. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Election  Board  when  Commis- 

600  sioner  Czarnecki's  resolution  was  offered,  the  following 
resolution  was  also  offered : 

"Whereas,  this  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  has 
heretofore  by  resolution,  duly  passed  and  recorded,  de- 
cided to  purchase  one  thousand  voting  machines  from  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  a  corporation  organ- 
ized and  doing  business  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New 
York  at  the  price  of  nine  hundred  and  forty-two  thousand 
five  hundred  dollars  ($942,500) ;  and 

"Whereas,  a  further  and  full  investigation  of  the  sam- 


122      Taylor  Resolution  for  Contra-ct  With  Empire  Co. 

pie  Empire  machine  by  this  board  and  by  the  experts  ap- 
pointed by  the  County  Court  warrants  this  board  in  pro- 
ceeding to  make  a  formal  contract  of  purchase ;  therefore, 
"Be  it  resolved,  that  any  two  members  of  this  board, 
together  with  the  Chief  Clerk  of  this  board,  be  and  they 
are  hereby  authorized  and  instructed  to  execute  and  de- 
liver a  written  contract,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached 
and  ordered  incorporated  in  the  minutes,  for  and  on  be- 
half of  this  board,  with  said  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany for  the  purchase  of  one  thousand  at  said  price  of  nine 
hundred  and  forty-two  thousand  five  hundred  dollars 
($942,500)  and  that  said  contract  shall  be  approved  by 
the  County  Judge  of  Cook  County,  Illinois,  and  that  said 
contract  be  executed  in  duplicate,  one  copy  for  said  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company  and  one  copy  for  this 
board." 

The  witness  states  that  the  above  was  a  resolution  sub- 
mitted by  him.    It  received  a  second. 

601  In  the  contract  the  time  for  deliveries  did  not  agree  with 
the  time  mentioned  in  the  specifications.  Paragraph  11  of 
the  voting  machine  contract  was  then  read  into  the  record 
as  follows: 

601-2  "Eleventh:  The  'board'  agrees  that  in  payment  of 
said  one  thousand  (1,000)  machines  the  'Company'  shall 
be  paid  the  full  sum  of  nine  hundred  forty-two  thousand 
five  hundred  dollars  ($942,500)  by  payment  or  payments 
to  be  made  on  the  delivery  and  acceptance  of  any  of  said 
machines,  said  payments  to  be  made  at  the  rate  of  nine 
hundred  forty-two  and  50/100  dollars  ($942.50)  for  each 
machine  so  accepted  and  delivered.  The  'board'  agrees 
that  such  acceptance  shall  be  made  within  ten  (10)  days 
after  the  delivery  of  the  machines  in  Chicago.  Said  pay- 
ments shall  be  allowed  first  by  the  approval  of  the  'board' 
of  the  claim  or  claims  as  they  become  payable  by  and  upon 
the  delivery  and  acceptance  of  the  machines.  That  said 
claim  or  claims  shall  then  be  forthwith  presented  to  the 
county  judge  for  auditing,  who  shall  then  draw  the  neces- 
sary warrant  or  warrants  to  secure  the  payment  thereof 
out  of  any  money  then  or  thereafter  available  in  the  City 
Treasury.  Said  warrants  shall  be  for  sums  of  from  one 
thousand  dollars  ($1,000)  to  ten  thousand  dollars  ($10,000) 
each,  and  of  such  smaller  amounts  as  may  be  necessary  to 
complete  the  payment,  and  shall  be  of  the  following  form 
as  nearly  as  may  be  practical : 


Testimony  of  Hoivard  S.  Taylor.  123 

"Chicago 191 

The  City  of  Chicago, 

For  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 

of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois. 
To  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  a  corporation  ex- 
isting under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York. 


Certified  correct  for 

the  sum  of Dollars 

Board  of  Electiox  Commissioners 
OF  THE  City  of  Chicago, 


By. 

Approved : 

By. 

Chairman. 
Audited  for  payment: 


Chief  Clerk. 

Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
OF  THE  City  of  Chicago. 


County  Judge." 

603  "Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  board  had  con- 
sidered the  question  of  financing  these  purchases  by  issu- 
ing certificates  of  indebtedness  or  bonds  such  as  provided 
for  in  Section  5  of  the  Voting  Machine  Law!  A.  I  under- 
stood and  understand  now  that  this  form  of  the  certificate 
of  indebtedness  is  the  form  referred  to  in  the  Voting  Ma- 
chine Law." 

Witness  thinks  such  a  certificate  of  indebtedness  is  not 
the  same  as  a  "warrant  for  current  expenses." 

The  witness  would  not  like  to  say  it  was  not  a  bond,  not 

604  in  form,  exactly.  But  whether  it  would  not  be  equivalent 
to  a  bond  witness  does  not  know.  Witness  thinks  the  City 
Council  at  this  time  had  not  made  any  appropriation  to 
meet  such  warrant.  The  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers have  not  notified  the  City  Council  to  prepare  to  meet 
such  expenses. 

605  The  letter  from  Judge  Owens'  experts  was  here  pro- 
duced. It  bore  no  date  but  had  a  notation  on  the  back 
"July  27—11." 

Witness  said,  "That  says  July  27,  '11.    This  contains 
the  filing  marks ;  that  is  my  handwriting.    I  think  prob- 


124  Testimony  of  Hoivard  S.  Taylor. 

ably  that  is  recently  made.  It  looks  like  it  was.  That  is 
my  handwriting;  that  says  July  27th — 11." 

This  letter  is  the  one  read  in  the  meeting  of  July  21st 
six  days  before  it  was  filed. 

"Mr.  Stuakt.  They  have  apparently  omitted  the  date, 
but  that  is  not  my  handwriting. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    It  is  not  your  handwriting,  Mr.  Stuart? 

"Mr.  Stuakt.  It  is  not.  It  is  in  the  handwriting  of 
Bert  Kelly,  my  secretary.  Do  you  want  it  looked  up  fur- 
ther as  to  date ! " 


Volume  VIII. 

Afternoon  session, 
Friday,  July  25, 1913. 
Howard  S.  Tayloe,  resumed  the  stand : 

608  The  letter  read  at  the  meeting  of  July  21st  was  the  sec- 
ond report  received  from  Judge  Owens'  experts.  Witness 
does  not  recall  that  they  received  any  later  report  before 
the  contract  was  awarded. 

The  second  report  or  letter  from  Judge  Owens '  experts 
was  here  read. 

609  "Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Did  you  incorporate  these  changes 
in  your  contract  ? 

"A.  I  think,  I  am  not  sure,  I  am  not  sure  whether  it  is 
in  the  contract  or  not,  but  my  recollection  is  that  the  Em- 
pire machine  that  was  purchased  for — the  70-key  Empire 
machine  that  was  produced  for  exhibition  and  competition 
had  reduced  the  slot  to  an  inch  and  a  half  and  that  it  was 
required  to  restore  it  to  its  old  dimensions  of  two  inches 
and  that  that  was  done. ' ' 

610  "Q.  Did  you  make  a  contract  specifying  that  those 
changes  should  be  made  ?   A.    I  cannot  tell  you. ' ' 

Witness  supposed  the  standard  of  comparison  for  ma- 
chines to  be  furnished  by  the  Empire  Company  was  the 
7-party,  50-key  machine  with  certain  changes  that  we  had 
made,  but  cannot  recall  that  the  changes  required  were 
incorporated  in  the  contract. 

611  Witness  has  no  independent  recollection  on  the  subject 
and  will  have  to  refer  to  the  contract.  Witness  here  ex- 
amines a  copy  of  the  contract. 

"A.     Yes,  the  second  provision  here  is  that  the  ma- 


The  Contract  With  the  Empire  Co.  125 

chine  shall  be  provided  with  independent  slides  of  not  less 
than  two  inches  in  length  and  one-half  inch  in  width  and 
shall  not  have  an  interlocking  device  requiring  the  opera- 
tion of  a  release  knob  between  the  straight  ticket  and  the 
ei2  split  ticket." 

The  contract  between  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany and  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  was  then 
read  into  the  record  as  follows : 
614-624  This  agreement,  made  and  executed  in  duplicate  this 
day  of  July,  A.  D.  1911,  by  and  between  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company  of  Jamestown,  N.  Y.,  a  cor- 
poration organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  party  of  the  first  part,  and  hereinafter  referred  to  as 
the  "Company,"  and  the  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers of  the  City  of  Chicago,  State  of  Illinois,  party  of  the 
second  part,  and  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "Board," 
Witnesseth  that : 

Whereas,  the  "Board"  issued  specifications  for  the  fur- 
nishing of  voting  machines  to  said  "Board"  which  said 
specifications  bear  date  April  27, 1911,  and  a  copy  of  which 
specifications  is  hereto  attached  and  marked  Exhibit  "A," 
and 

Whereas,  the  "Company"  bid  in  competition  on  said 
specifications  and  was  the  successful  bidder  for  furnishing 
voting  machines,  and 

Whereas,  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  manufactured  by 
the  "Company"  has  been  duly  approved  by  the  Illinois 
State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners  as  com- 
plying with  all  of  the  requirements  of  the  laws  of  Illinois 
relating  to  the  use  of  voting  machines  and  a  report  of  said 
Board,  setting  forth  such  approval,  has  been  duly  filed 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  Illinois,  and  a 
certified  copy  of  a  certificate  of  said  voting  machine  Com- 
missioners certifying  as  to  an  actual  examination  of  a 
seventy  (70)  key,  nine  (9)  column  machine  by  said  Voting 
Machine  Commissioners  shall  be  filed  with  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago  before  the 
first  installment  of  machines  is  accepted,  and  a  failure  to 
file  same  shall  nullify  this  contract. 

Whereas,  the  "Company"  has  submitted  to  the 
"Board"  a  machine  which  provides  for  nine  (9)  political 
parties  of  seventy  (70)  candidates  each,  one  row  of  sev- 
enty (70)  devices  for  voting  persons  not  nominated,  and 


126  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

one  (1)  row  of  devices  for  voting  on  twenty-five  (25)  ques- 
tions : 

Now,  therefore,  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  agree- 
ments hereinafter  stated  and  expressed,  the  parties  hereto 

615  hereby  covenant  and  agree  with  each  other  as  follows : 

First:  The  "Company"  hereby  agrees  to  sell  to  the 
"Board"  One  Thousand  (1,000)  Empire  Voting  Machines 
at  the  net  price  of  nine  hundred  forty-two  and  50/100  dol- 
lars ($942.50)  for  each  machine,  f.  o.  b.  car  at  Chicago, 
Illinois,  and  agree  that  each  machine  so  furnished  shall  in 
all  respects  comply  with  all  the  requirements  of  the  Stat- 
utes of  Illinois  now  in  force  relating  to  the  use  of  voting 
machines.  The  "Company"  also  agrees  that  each  ma- 
chine so  furnished  shall  be  of  the  same  materials  and  ex- 
cellence as  the  seventy  key  nine  column  machine  exhibited 
at  the  time  of  ensealing  these  presents. 

Second:  The  "Company"  agrees  that  each  of  said  ma- 
chines shall  provide  for  nine  (9)  political  parties  of  sev- 
enty (70)  candidates  each,  one  row  of  seventy  (70)  devices 
for  voting  for  persons  not  nominated,  one  row  of  devices 
for  voting  on  twenty -five  (25)  questions,  and  a  device  to 
provide  for  voting  cumulatively  on  the  office  of  member 
of  assembly,  said  machine  shall  be  provided  wdth  indepen- 
dent slides  of  not  less  than  two  inches  in  length  and  one- 
half  inch  in  width  and  shall  not  have  the  interlocking  de- 
vice requiring  the  operation  of  a  release  knob  between  the 

616  straight  ticket  and  the  split  ticket. 

Third :  The  ' '  Company ' '  agrees  to  deliver  the  said  ma- 
chines f .  0.  b.  Chicago,  Illinois,  as  follows : 

Two  hundred  (200)  thereof  on  or  before  eight  (8) 
months  after  the  date  of  this  contract,  three  hundred  (300) 
thereof  on  or  before  fifteen  months  after  the  date  of  this 
contract,  two  hundred  and  fifty  (250)  thereof  on  or  be- 
fore twenty-one  (21)  months  after  the  date  of  this  con- 
tract and  two  hundred  and  fifty  (250)  thereof  on  or  before 
twenty-six  (26)  months  after  the  date  of  this  contract, 
pro\'ided,  always,  there  is  no  delay  caused  by  strikes,  fires 
or  other  causes  over  which  the  "Company"  has  no  con- 
trol. It  is  mutually  agreed  by  the  "Company"  and  the 
"Board"  that  subject  to  the  foregoing  the  "Company" 
may  deliver  said  machines  in  shipments  of  fifty  (50)  or 
more  machines  as  suits  the  convenience  of  the ' '  Company" 
and  that  the  ' '  Board ' '  will  receive  and  accept  the  same  as 
they  arrive  in  Chicago,  said  deliveries  are  also  to  be  made 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  127 

subject  to  the  provisions  of  Section  13  hereinafter  con- 
tained. 

Fourth:  The  "Company"  agrees  to  make  good  by  re- 
pairs or  replacement  any  imperfections  or  defects  in  ma- 
terial or  workmanship  in  said  machines  and  to  keep  said 
machines  in  repair  without  additional  cost  to  the  "Board" 
for  a  period  of  five  (5)  years  from  the  delivery  of  said 
machines  to  said  "Board,"  provided,  however,  that  said 
machines  shall  be  properly  cared  for  and  properly  pre- 
pared for  each  election,  and  provided,  further,  that  such 
repair  or  replacement  is  not  rendered  necessary  by  the 
elements,  fire,  accidents  or  through  careless  or  malicious 
handling. 

Fifth:  The  "Company"  agrees  to  defend  any  action 
or  actions  that  may  be  brought  against  the  "Board"  or 
against  any  officer,  member  or  employe  of  said  "Board," 
or  against  the  City  of  Chicago,  or  against  the  Countv 
Judge  or  any  judge  of  election,  by  reason  of  any  alleged 
infringement  of  any  letters  patent  by  the  use  of  said  ma- 
chines (provided  immediate  notice  is  given  to  the  "Com- 
pany" of  the  beginning  of  any  such  action)  and  to  indem- 
nify the  "Board"  for  all  damages  and  costs  and  attor- 
neys '  fees  that  may  be  incurred  therefrom. 

Sixth:  The  "Company"  agrees  to  furnish  with  each 
machine,  without  extra  charge,  for  the  instruction  of  vot- 
ers, a  working  model,  which  shall  be  a  duplicate  of  a  por- 
tion of  the  face  of  the  machine. 

Seventh :  It  is  mutually  agreed  that  if  the  ' '  Board ' '  de- 
sires to  purchase  any  additional  voting  machines  that  said 
"Board"  may  purchase  same  from  said  "Company"  and 

618  said  ' '  Company ' '  agrees  to  sell  said  machines  at  no  higher 
price  than  the  price  named  in  this  contract. 

Eighth:  The  said  "Company"  hereby  agrees  to  allow 
said  "Board"  to  have  the  use  and  benefits  of  all  future 
patents  and  improvements  owned  or  controlled  by  the 

619  "Company"  applicable  to  and  an  advancement  upon  the 
process  and  functions  of  this  machine  without  additional 
cost  to  said  "Board"  except  a  reasonable  price  for  the 
labor  and  materials  employed  in  such  improvements. 

Ninth:  The  "Company"  agrees  to  deliver  to  the  Elec- 
tion Board  a  bond  in  the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars  ($250,000)  executed  by  the  "Company" 
as  principal  and  by  a  surety  company  authorized  to  do 
business  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  as  surety,  guaranteeing 


128  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

the  prompt  and  faithful  performance  by  the  "Company" 
of  each  and  every  obligation  on  its  part  in  this  agreement 
contained,  said  bond  to  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  the 
Judge  of  the  County  Court  of  Cook  County,  Illinois.  Said 
bond  and  this  contract  are  to  be  read  as  one  contract. 

Tenth :  The  ' '  Board ' '  hereby  agrees  to  purchase  from 
the  "Company"  the  said  one  thousand  (1,000)  Empire 
Voting  Machines  at  the  net  price  of  nine  hundred  forty- 
two  and  50/100  dollars  ($942.50)  for  each  machine,  f.  o.  b. 
machine  cars  Chicago,  Illinois,  amounting  in  the  aggregate 

619  to  the  sum  of  nine  hundred  forty-two  thousand  five  hun- 
dred dollars  ($942,500)  to  which  amount  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago shall  become  indebted  to  the  Company  on  the  deliv- 
ery and  acceptance  of  the  machines. 

Eleventh:  The  "Board"  agrees  that  in  payment  of 
said  one  thousand  (1,000)  machines  the  "Company"  shall 
be  paid  the  full  sum  of  nine  hundred  forty-two  thousand 
five  hundred  dollars  ($942,500)  by  payment  or  payments 
to  be  made  on  the  delivery  and  acceptance  of  any  of  said 
machines,  said  payments  to  be  made  at  the  rate  of  nine 
hundred  forty-two  and  50/100  dollars  ($942.50)  for  each 
machine  so  accepted  and  delivered.  The  "Board"  agrees 
that  such  acceptance  shall  be  made  within  ten  (10)  days 
after  the  delivery  of  the  machines  in  Chicago.  Said  pay- 
ments shall  be  allowed  first  by  the  approval  of  the 
"Board,"  of  the  claim  or  claims  as  they  become  payable 
by  and  upon  the  delivery  and  acceptance  of  the  machines. 
That  said  claim  or  claims  shall  then  be  forthwith  presented 
to  the  County  Judge  for  auditing,  who  shall  then  draw  the 
necessary  warrant  or  warrants  to  secure  the  payment 
thereof  out  of  any  money  then  or  thereafter  available  in 
the  City  Treasury.  Said  warrants  shall  be  for  sums  of 
from  one  thousand  dollars  ($1,000)  to  ten  thousand  dol- 

620  lars  ($10,000)  each,  and  of  such  smaller  amounts  as  may 
be  necessary  to  complete  the  payment,  and  shall  be  of  the 
following  form  as  nearly  as  may  be  practical: 


Testimony/  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  129 

621  Chicago 191.... 

The  City  of  Chicago, 

For  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 
Of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois. 
To  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  a  corporation  ex- 
isting under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York. 


« 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

# 

* 

* 

• 

« 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

# 

# 

# 

# 

* 

* 

* 

Certified  correct  for 

The  sum  of Dollars 

BoAED  OF  Election  Commissioners 
OF  THE  City  of  Chicago, 


By. 

Approved : 

By. 


Chief  Clerk. 

BoAKD  OF  Election  Commissioners 
OF  THE  City  of  Chicago, 

Chairman. 
Audited  for  payment : 


County  Judge. 

622  Interest  at  four  and  one-quarter  (4l^)  per  cent,  shall  be 
paid  on  all  amounts,  the  payment  of  which  may  be  deferred 
more  than  thirty  (30)  days  after  the  date  of  the  warrants, 
which  shall  be  dated  as  of  the  date  of  the  acceptance  of 
the  machine. 

Twelfth:  The  "Board"  further  agrees  to  give  imme- 
diate notice  to  the  governing  authorities  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  of  the  execution  of  this  contract,  so  that  provision 
may  be  made  for  the  prompt  payment  of  the  amounts  be- 
coming due  hereunder. 

Thirteenth:  It  is  further  agreed  between  the  "Com- 
pany" and  the  "Board"  that  the  machines  may  be  deliv- 
ered in  shipments  of  fifty  (50)  or  more,  which  machines 
shall  be  paid  for  promptly  on  delivery  and  acceptance,  and 
in  case  there  is  any  delay  in  the  receipt  of  the  purchase 
price  in  money  by  the  "Company"  on  account  of  the  fail- 
ure of  the  City  of  Chicago  to  promptly  pay  any  warrant  so 
issued,  the  "Company"  at  its  option  may  postpone  the  de- 
livery of  the  balance  of  the  machines  by  a  term  beyond  the 


130  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 

time  fixed  for  delivery  in  this  contract,  to  equal  the  delay 
in  the  payment  of  such  warrant. 

In  witness  whereof,  The  "Company"  has  caused  these 
presents  to  he  signed  in  its  name,  by  its  president  and 
sealed  with  its  corporate  seal  and  attested  by  its  secretary, 
the  day  and  year  first  above  written,  and  the  ' '  Board ' '  has 
caused  these  presents  to  be  signed  in  its  name  by  two  mem- 
bers of  said  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  and  the 
Chief  Clerk  of  said  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  and 
sealed  with  its  seal  at  the  same  time. 

Empike  Votikg  Machine  Company, 

By 

(seal)  President. 

Attest : 

Secretary. 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
OF  THE  City  of  Chicago, 
By 

Chairman  and  Election  Commissioner. 

By 

Election  Commissioner. 

By 

(seal)  Chief  Clerh. 

Attest : 

Chief  Clerk. 
Approved : 

County  Judge. 
0.  K.  C.  H.  M. 

624  Attached  to  the  contract  as  Exhibit  "A"  is  a  printed 
copy  of  the  board's  specifications  for  the  furnishing  of 
voting  machines,  dated  April  27th,  1911,  which  is  attached 
here  and  which  is  also  on  file. 

626  The  witness  thinks  the  minutes  concerning  the  contract 
are  correct. 

"  Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  11th.  I  will  not  go  into 
the  contract  very  much.  It  said  that  the  warrants  of  the 
County  Judge  are  to  be  paid  out  of  '  any  money  thereafter 
available  in  the  City  Treasury'?    A.    Yes,  sir." 

Witness  recalls  that  the  Bureau  of  Efficiency  had  called 
the  attention  of  the  Election  Commissioners  to  the  fact 
that  this  provision  would  mean  that  "You  could  take  out 


Fwids  to  Pay  for  Voting  Machines.  131 

the  funds  called  the  traction  funds  accumulated  through 
the  percentage  awarded  the  city  by  the  public  utility  com- 
panies for  the  purpose  of  building  a  subway  ? 

' '  Q.  Did  you  make  any  inquiry  as  to  the  validity  of  that 
claim" — and  so  forth. 

"A.  We  had  some  discussion  about  it.  I  don't  just  re- 
call who,  whether  it  was  before  the  board  as  organized,  or 
anybody  else  and  the  opinion,  I  think,  of  this  commission 
and  myself,  and  perhaps  Mr.  Wheelock,  who  was  then,  I 
think,  representing  the  company — 

"Q.     The  Empire  Company?    A.     The  Empire  Com- 

627  pany  was  that  it  was  sort  of  a  waiting  scheme  that  we 
would  have  to  take  the  funds  when  they  were  available; 
when  the  City  Council  thought  they  were  available  and  in 
effect  it  was  a  matter  that  would  defer  the  payment ;  hence 
the  provision  for  deferred  payments  bearing  a  rate  of  in- 
terest." 

The  witness  cannot  recall  specifically  whether  the  Bu- 
reau of  Efficiency's  contention  regarding  the  taking  out  of 
the  traction  fund  was  ever  considered  by  the  Election  Com- 
missioners. 

Witness  never  heard  of  the  proposition  that  judgment 
should  be  confessed  on  the  warrants  converting  indebted- 
ness into  a  judgment  against  the  city. 

628  That  is  what  has  come  to  pass,  but  it  was  not  considered 
at  the  time. 

Witness  does  not  know,  but  has  heard  that  the  City  has 
confessed  judgment  for  $182,000. 

The  following  was  then  read  into  the  record  from  the 
minutes  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners : 
628-9    "Commissioner   Taylor:    Mr.   Chairman,  now,  after 
having  heard  the  contract  read,  referred  to  in  my  motion, 
I  move  its  adoption. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Did  you  make  that  statement? 

"A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Mr.  Whittakek  ( reading) .  ' Commissioner  Czarnecki : 
Let's  get  this  thing  clear;  does  this  resolution  adopt  and 
approve  this  contract?  Commissioner  Taylor:  Yes,  and 
I  want  the  authority  of  the  majority  of  this  board  to  exe- 
cute this  contract. ' 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    That  is  correct?    A.    Yes. 

"Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  'Commissioner  Czar- 
necki :  Is  it  out  of  order  to  study  over  this  contract,  with 
the  view  to  offering  amendments  to  it?  This  is  the  first 
time  I  have  seen  this  contract.    There  are  things  that  I 


132  Czarnecki  Denied  Time  to  Read  Contract. 

might  submit  that  would  meet  with  your  approval.  There 
is  a  penalizing  clause  and  there  are  other  things  that  are 
missing.  Surely,  gentlemen,  you  will  give  me  sufficient 
time  for  that.    I  ask  it  and  I  move  it. '  " 

The  witness  cannot  tell  whether  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki had  seen  the  contract  previous  to  the  time  of  his 
.   motion  above  quoted. 

The  following  motion  by  Commissioner  Taylor  was 
then  read  into  the  record : 

629  "  'Commissioner  Taylor:  I  object  to  any  delay.  There 
isn't  a  single  item  of  that  contract  that  has  not  been  de- 
bated and  redebated  except  two  or  three  small  provisions; 
Most  of  that  matter  is  old  specifications,  which  I  believe 
you  approved. '  ' ' 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Did  you  make  that  statement? 
"A.    Yes,  sir. 

630  "  Q.  If  there  were  no  new  items  added  to  the  contract, 
why  did  you  object  to  giving  him  time  to  read  it?  A.  My 
objection  at  that  time,  and  to  previous  motions  of  Mr. 
Czarnecki  was  largely  founded  on  the  strong  impression 
I  had  that  his  whole  course — the  whole  course  of  his  man- 
agement, his  objections,  the  introduction  of  protests  and 

■  letters,  was  simply  a  movement  for  delay,  with  the  ex- 
pectation of  defeating  by  delay  the  consummation  of  the 
contract. 

* '  Q.  Did  you  expect  that  he  would  influence  you  to  vote 
against  the  contract?  A.  If  I  would  yield  to  him  and 
delay,  I  think  there  was  a  possibility. ' ' 

The  witness  continues  his  answer:  "I  will  answer  I 
did  not  expect  he  could  control  me.  I  had  been  studying 
this  business  for  a  great  many  years  and  knew,  or  thought 
I  knew,  and  think  I  know  now,  that  voting  machines, 
widely  in  use  throughout  the  United  States,  and  almost 
uniformly  certified  to  be  effective  and  economical  and 

631  safe,  that  it  was  a  wise  thing  for  Chicago  to  get  them  and 
to  get  them  right  away,  as  the  grand  jury  had  recom- 
mended in  1908.  I  had  that  strong  conviction  and  while  I 
yielded  at  the  start  to  the  dilatory  movements  of  Mr. 
Czarnecki,  and  continuing  from  time  to  time,  for  instance, 
the  period  of  opening  the  bids,  three  times,  I  think,  and 
then  continuing  it  indefinitely,  and  hearing  patiently  all 
the  protests,  some  of  them  insulting,  and  hearing  their 
arguments,  after  all  that  I  got  a  little  impatient  toward 
the  last,  and  I  thought  it  was  time  for  us  to  do  something. 


Reasons  for  Denial.  133 

That  was  my  feeling  along  toward  the  close  of  this  term 
of  discussion. ' ' 

"Q.  Then  why  did  you  object  to  giving  him  an  oppor- 
tunity to  read  the  contract  before  he  signed  it,  for  $942,- 
500?  A.  My  objection  was  out  of  a  feeling  of  impatience 
toward  the  continued  pressure  of  procrastination  and  be- 
cause, as  I  stated  here,  we  had  debated  those  points  over 
631-2  and  over  again  and  threshed  them  out,  and  there  was 
nothing  except  this — so  far  as  the  expert  report  and  plans 
for  the  final  machine,  except  this  large  slot  and  that  re- 
lease lever  that  had  not  been  demonstrated  to  the  board ; 
and  I  saw  no  occasion  for  waiting. ' ' 

' '  Q.  You  thought  he  would  have  ample  time  for  reading 
it  after  it  was  passed!  A.  Yes,  and  I  think  after  he  had 
read  it,  and  after  it  was  passed,  he  continued  to  object  to 
it  on  one  ground  or  another. 

"  Q.  It  seems  he  is  doing  it  yet ;  it  seems  he  has  kept  it 
up  for  two  years ?    A.    Yes." 

A  statement  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  at  this  meet- 
ing of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  was  then  read 
into  the  record  as  follows : 

"  'Commissioner  Czarnecki:  The  only  action  I  ap- 
proved on  voting  machines  in  this  board  was  the  action  of 
Chief  Clerk  Stuart  way  back  in  last  February  to  send  out 
notices  to  the  voting  machine  men  that  we  might  become 
interested  in  the  installation  of  the  voting  machines  in 
this  city.  When  the  specifications  were  considered  and 
acted  upon  I  submitted  a  minority  report  and  have  a  copy 
of  it.  I  voted  against  the  approval  and  adoption  of  your 
specifications.'  " 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Did  he  make  that  statement  ? 

A.    I  am  not  sure  about  it. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  doubt  it?  A.  I  have  been  willing  to 
let  that  minute  go  in  as  correct. 

The  Chairman.  I  would  like  to  have  a  little  more  read 
right  along  there. 

Mr.  Deneen.    So  there  won't  be  any  dispute,  we  will 
take  it  up  paragraph  by  paragraph. 
633      Mr.    Whittakek  (reading).    "Commissioner   Taylor: 
You  signed  the  specifications  yourself  and  it  was  so  pub- 
lished to  the  world. ' ' 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Was  that  stated!    It  was,  was  it  not? 

A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Whittakek  (reading).    "Commissioner  Czarnecki: 


134  Czarnecki  States  His  Position. 

If  I  signed  I  did  so  as  secretary  of  the  board  under  protest 
and  not  at  any  meeting. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Did  he  make  that  statement? 

A.  Well,  that  may  be.  I  confess  that  my  independent 
recollection  of  that  conference  or,  rather,  dispute,  was 
somewhat  different  from  this,  but  I  can't  give  you  the 
items  and  features  of  it  from  my  memory. 

Q.  Well,  the  fact  w^as  he  did  sign  it  under  protest, 
didn  't  he  ?    A.    No,  sir,  I  don 't  think  he  did. 

Q.    You  don't  think  so?    A.    I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q.  Do  you  dispute  the  statement  made  here?  A.  I 
don't  think  he  protested;  I  don't  think  we  heard  a  word 
of  protest  from  Mr.  Czarnecki  at  the  time  those  specifica- 
tions were  signed ;  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Read  the  next. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  ''Commissioner  Taylor:  I 
do  not  recollect  any  protest  from  you." 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    You  made  that  statement  ?    A.    Yes. 

634  Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  " Commissioner  Czarnecki : 
Do  you  remember  a  series  of  motions  and  amendments 
that  I  offered  to  this  board  for  the  specifications  right  here 
in  this  room.  Dr.  Taylor?  Commissioner  Taylor:  When 
was  that — last  winter?  Commissioner  Czarnecki :  I  want 
to  make  myself  clear  on  this.  In  the  first  place  I  would 
like  to  see  my  signature.  Commissioner  Taylor:  You 
signed.  Commissioner  Czarnecki :  If  I  signed  the  speci- 
fications I  did  so  as  secretary  of  the  board,  as  a  matter  of 
form,  and  did  not  withdraw  my  protest. ' ' 

635  Q.  Now,  those  minutes  are  correct  as  far  as  we  got; 
we  haven't  got  to  any  others.  Or  shall  we  read  them? 
A.  I  will  not  dispute  them;  it  may  be  that  these  things 
were  said  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Now  read  your  statements,  you  objected 
to  it  at  the  time.  Read  Commissioner  Taylor's  statement, 
Mr.  Whittaker. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  "Commissioner  Taylor: 
The  only  thing  that  is  new  in  this  contract  or  of  any  ma- 
terial diflference  is  the  provision  that  we  have  made  in 
there  as  to  the  manner  of  delivery  of  the  machines  and 
provisions  for  the  enlargement  of  the  slots  for  indepen- 
dent voters.  I  am  opposed  to  any  motion  for  delay.  I  have 
been  remaining  here  under  painful  conditions  for  the  past 
three  or  four  days.  My  sister  has  been  ill.  I  have  been 
called  on  the  telephone  and  by  telegraph.  I  felt  that  I 
did  not  wish  to  go  until  this  matter  was  settled.    I  will 


Commissioner  Taylor  Objects  to  Delay.  135 

object  to  anything  that  would  occupy  me  eight  or  ten  days 
longer  until  this  matter  is  disposed  of.  I  am  opposed  to 
any  delay,  for  any  purpose  real  or  pretended.  I  urge  the 
adoption  of  the  motion. ' ' 

Mr.  Deneen.  You  made  that  statement?  A.  I  think 
that  is  probably  correct. 

Q.    Yes?    A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Now  read  Mr.  Czarnecki's  statement. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  "Commissioner  Czarnecki: 
In  the  first  place,  before  you  go  on,  I  must  make  myself 
clear  as  to  what  my  position  and  my  action  has  been  from 
the  beginning.  My  vote  was  against  every  step  and  these 
specifications.  The  specifications  were  adopted  by  a  ma- 
jority vote  of  two  to  one.  My  recommendations  were 
ignored  and  overruled  except  in  one  or  two  instances 
perhaps  and  I  voted  against  the  approval  of  the  specifi- 
cations." 

636  "If  I  signed  the  specifications  as  secretary  I  did  it  upon 
your  request  as  a  matter  of  form,  but  the  fact  as  to  my 
position,  what  was  done  by  this  board  in  voting,  there  is 
no  question  in  my  mind.  I  did  not  and  do  not  approve  the 
specifications. ' ' 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  He  made  that  statement?  A.  I 
think  so. 

Q.    Now,  Clerk  Stuart  said — read  that,  Mr.  Whittaker. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  "Chief  Clerk:  My  recol- 
lection is  that  you  did  sign  these  specifications." 

Sen.  Canaday.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  of  Mr. 
Taylor. 

Q.  Is  that  original  resolution  in  existence,  on  file  here? 
A.  I  can't  tell  you  about  that.  They  were  probably  sent 
to  the  printer  and  whether  they  were  returned,  and  gotten 
back  again,  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  did  sign  that  in  any  other 
capacity  except  as  secretary  of  the  board?  A.  Well,  that 
might  have  been  the  motive  in  his  mind,  I  am  very  certain 
that  there  was  no  protest  written  upon  the  copy,  that  is 
my  recollection,  strong  recollection.  I  would  have  noted 
it  at  the  time,  I  think  that  was  at  a  period  considerably 
before  Mr.  Czarnecki  began  his  objections. 

Sen.  Canaday.  The  copy  that  I  have  here  is  signed, 
"Charles  H.  Kellerman,  Chairman,"  "Anthony  Czar- 
necki, Secretary, "  "  Howard  S.  Taylor,  Board  of  Election 

637  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois."  Is  that 
the  way  the  original  draft  was  signed? 


136  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor, 

A.    I  think  that  was  the  way,  sir. 

Sen.  Canaday.    That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.    That  is  all  the  Senator  wants  to  ask. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  will  ask  you  a  question  there  on  that. 
You  remember  that  Commissioner  Czarnecki  asked  you 
one  evening,  and  which  you  read,  to  procure  a  statement 
of  those  specifications  and  which  you  refused,  that  was 
recalled  to  your  mind  yesterday,  he  wanted  to  read  the 
proof-sheets  and  you  and  your  associates  prevented  it? 

A.    I  do  not  recall. 

Q.  We  went  to  that  yesterday,  but  we  did  not  hunt  it 
up.    A.    It  may  have  been. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Make  a  note  of  that  and  I  will  look  the 
•  record  up  on  that.    All  right,  Mr.  Whittaker. 

Mr.  Whittaker.  Following  what  the  Chief  Clerk  said, 
Mr.  Czarnecki  said:  "If  I  did  it  I  did  it  as  secretary  of 
the  board  upon  your  request.  Such  signing  as  secretary 
as  a  matter  of  form  under  direction  of  a  majority  of  the 
board  surely  did  not  mtean  an  approval  after  I  voted 
against  approving  them,  and  surely  that  is  clear  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  specifications  themselves.    If  you  recall 

637  your  specifications  provide  for  the  submitting  of  bids 
within  25  days  or  less  than  a  month,  whereas  I  urged  and 

638  offered  amendments  that  three  months  at  least  be  given. 
If  you  recollect  I  also  urged  the  bond  to  be  equal  to  the 
amount  of  the  purchase.  I  also  urged  that  a  check  for 
one  per  cent,  of  the  purchase  price  and  not  more  be  re- 
quired as  a  certified  check  deposit  on  the  bid.  I  did  not 
withdraw  my  objections.  I  insisted  upon  minority  rec- 
ommendations and  voted  against  the  approval  and  adop- 
tion of  the  specifications. ' ' 

Mr.  Deneen.    That  is  correct,  isn't  it.  Doctor? 

A.    I  think  it  is,  sir. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Now,  Doctor  Taylor's  remark. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  "Commissioner  Taylor: 
That  was  true,  I  recall  some  of  this.  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki :  I  want  to  bring  this  to  your  attention.  I  did  not 
approve  and  did  not  vote  for  the  specifications.  Commis- 
sioner Taylor :  I  cannot  say  now  that  you  differed  from 
the  majority  of  the  board ;  my  impression  was  that  after 
we  had  completed  the  discussion  and  the  matter  came  to 
a  vote  you  agreed  to  vote  and  sign  the  specifications." 

Mr.  Deneen.  That  statement  was  made  by  you  and  by 
638  him  as  read  there  ? 

A.    Yes,  sir. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  137 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  "Commissioner  Czarnecki: 
If  you  will  think  about  this  matter  I  cannot  believe  that 
you  will  not  agree  with  me  that  I  am  right  as  to  my  posi- 
tion. It  is  unpleasant  for  me  to  point  out  your  mistakes, 
Doctor,  as  to  my  position  in  this  matter,  at  this  time. 
639  There  was  no  agreement  of  all  the  board  on  the  specifi- 
cations and  no  unanimous  vote.  My  position  has  not 
changed  on  this  proposition  from  start  to  finish  and  at 
this  time  I  would  respectfully  move  and  ask  to  give  me 
sufficient  time  to  look  over  this  contract  for  the  first  time 
in  my  hands." 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Did  he  make  that  statement,  accord- 
ing to  your  best  recollection? 

A.    I  do  not  recall  about  that. 

Q.    Do  you  dispute  it?    A.    Oh,  no,  no. 

Q.  Well,  it  has  been  approved  as  part  of  the  minutes? 
A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Now  read  Dr.  Taylor 's  statement. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  "Commissioner  Taylor:  I 
object  to  any  further  delay  myself.  I  want  the  motion 
passed.  We  have  been  here  talking  over  this  matter  for 
at  least  three  months. ' ' 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  You  made  that  statement,  to  the  best 
of  your  recollection? 

A.    Yes,  sir,  probably. 

639  Mr.  Deneen.     Now  read    Commissioner   Kellerman's 
statement. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  " Commissioner  Kellerman : 
Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  the  motion.  All  in  favor  say 
*  aye. '  Commissioners  Taylor  and  Kellerman  voted  '  aye. ' 
Commissioner  Czarnecki  voted  'nay.'  Motion  carried  by 
a  vote  of  two  to  one. ' ' 

Mr.  Deneen.    Is  that  a  correct  statement  ? 

A.    I  think  so. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Now  read  Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  re- 
mark. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).    "Will  I  have  the  privilege 

640  of  setting  forth  my  reasons  in  detail  and  in  writing  on  my 
voting  'nay,'  as  soon  as  I  can  prepare  them?" 

Mr.  Deneen.    Now,  Dr.  Taylor's  remark. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  " Commissioner  Taylor :  I 
have  no  objections  to  your  setting  forth  your  reasons,  but 
when  these  minutes  come  to  be  written  upon  the  record  I 
shall  object  very  much  to  the  writing  in  of  an  oration.  I 
think  it  is  very  bad  business,  unprecedented  by  any  other 


138  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

board.  I  think  there  should  be  some  way  of  reducing  the 
transactions  of  the  board  to  as  brief  a  form  as  possible. 
I  shall  insist  that  the  minutes  be  written  out  in  that  proper 
method  and  proper  manner  and  before  they  are  written 
out  in  that  proper  method  and  proper  manner  and  before 
they  are  written  in  they  must  be  brought  before  this  board 
and  approved  by  this  board. ' ' 

640  Mr.  Deneen.  You  made  that  statement  in  response  to 
him? 

A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Now  read  Commissioner  Czarnecki's  re- 
mark. 

Mr.  Whittakeb  (reading) .  ' ' Commissioner  Czarnecki : 
Do  I  understand  that  you  will  insist  that  my  motions  and 
resolutions  which  did  not  receive  a  second  will  not  appear 
of  record?  Conmiissioner  Taylor :  They  ought  to  appear 
in  the  record." 

Mr.  Deneen.  Those  statements  by  him  and  you  are 
correct? 

A.    Yes,  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Yes.  Bead  Commissioner  Czarnecki's 
statements. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).    "We  have  a  transcript  of 

641  the  shorthand  reporter's  notes  in  typewritten  form  of  the 
board's  proceedings  during  the  time  Mr.  Force,  the  short- 
hand reporter,  was  here.  Then  after  he  left  we  had  no 
shorthand  transcript  notes  but  I  have  minutes  from  my 
own  notes  and  notes  as  taken  by  our  stenographer.  We 
have  all  the  minutes  of  all  meetings." 

Mr.  Dekeen.  He  made  that  statement,  did  he,  or  in  sub- 
stance that? 

A.  I  do  not  recall  anything  about  that  at  all,  that  latter 
part. 

Q.  Well,  you  do  not  dispute  it,  you  simply  do  not  recall 
it?'  A.    Oh,  no,  I  don't— 

Q.  Well,  that  was  approved  as  part  of  the  minutes  of 
the  board?    A.    That  is  a  matter  for  the — 

Q.  What  did  you  say?  A.  I  say  that  is  a  matter  for 
the  Commission,  as  to  what  is  proven  by  the  minutes. 

Q.  I  say,  the  Commission  approved  that;  they  ap- 
proved the  statements.  You  Commissioners  approved 
these  notes,  these  minutes  as  they  appeared?  A.  No,  sir. 
I  explained  a  day  or  two  ago  that  these  notes  probably 
never  had  been  approved  by  the  board. 

Q.    You  think  that  part  of  the  minutes  which  recites  you 


Commissioner  Csarnecki  Makes  a  Motion.  139 

made  a  contract,  was  not  approved,  and  this  whole  thing 
could  be  opened  up ;  do  you  think  that  would  stick ! 

A.  I  don't  know  about  that,  I  don't  think  that  as  a  mat- 
ter of  law,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  approval  of 
those  being  made,  except  in  this  way,  long  after  they  were 
written  out  I  went  over  them  for  the  purpose  of  editing 
them  into  some  sort  of  shape,  getting  them  condensed, 
practically,  a  few  errors  of  phraseology,  supplied  a  word 
here  and  there,  and  then  they  were  turned  over  to  the 
typewriter  to  be  written  out  on  a  sheet  as  amended  to  be 
submitted  to  the  Board  for  our  approval.  Now  that  is  my 
recollection  about  the  minutes,  and  I  am  not  sure,  I  would 
not  say  positively  whether  we  ever  took  any  action  approv- 
ing all  of  those  minutes.  I  said  to  Mr.  Kellerman,  however, 
642  that  on  looking  over  the  minut-es  we  were  discussing  the 
fact  whether  they  were  accurate  or  not — that  in  my  opinion 
the  substantial  features  of  the  procedure  were  preserved, 
and  my  advice  was  not  to  make  any  fuss  about  it,  let  it  go 
in,  then  go  written  into  a  book  and  stand  as  the  minutes. 

Q.  You, — among  other  things,  you  said,  'Let  this  be 
written  in  to  stand  as  the  minutes  1 '    A.    Yes,  let  it  go  in. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  in  editing  these  minutes  you  did 
not  write  on  each  of  the  minutes,  'the  minutes  of  the 
previous  meeting  read  and  approved,'  or  indicated  to  your 
stenographer  to  have  that  done,  or,  as  a  matter  of  form, 
you  said  'pro  forma'?  A.  Yes,  pro  forma.  The  stenog- 
rapher had  been  directed  to  put  that  in,  a  certain  form, 
'the  Board  met  at  a  certain  time,  present  so  and  so,  minutes 
of  the  previous  meeting  read  and  approved. ' 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  made  the  following  mo- 
tion: 
643-4  "  'Commissioner  Czarnecki:  I  move  that  before  the 
resolution  and  contract  passed  by  the  Board's  majority 
offered  by  Mr.  Taylor,  and  regarding  the  purchase  of  the 
voting  machines  goes  into  effect  and  is  acted  upon,  that  this 
Board  proceed  to  devise  ways  to  take  the  question  of  sub- 
mitting the  entering  into,  signing  and  executing  of  that 
contract  to  a  vote  of  the  people  at  the  next  November  elec- 
tion.' 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    He  made  that  statement,  did  he ? 

"A.     I  recall  that. 

' '  Q.     And  your  answer  was — Read  Dr.  Taylor 's  answer. 

"Mr.  Whittaker.  (reading).     'Commissioner  Taylor: 

The  voting  machine  proposition  has  been  submitted  to 


140  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 

the  people  and  voted  nine  to  one  in  favor  of  it  a  good  while 
ago.' 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    That  was  your  statement? 

"A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Now  Commissioner  Czarnecki's  state- 
ment.   Read  it,  Mr.  Whittaker. 

' '  Mr.  Whittaker  ( reading) .  '  Commissioner  Czarnecki. 
I  move  we  adjourn.'  *Mr.  L.  R.  Winslow.  Before  you  ad- 
journ, may  I  be  heard?'  'Commissioner  Taylor.  I  do 
not  care  to  hear  Mr.  Winslow.  Commissioner  Czarnecki. 
I  have  no  objection  to  hearing  you.    Mr.  Winslow.    I  don't 

644  care  whether  you  want  to  hear  me  or  not,  Dr.  Taylor.  I 
address  myself  to  Mr.  Kellerman  and  Mr.  Czarnecki.  I 
would  like  to  ask  the  Board  if  I  may  be  furnished  with 
certified  copies  of  the  previous  minutes,  on  the  subject 
matter  of  voting  machines,  of  the  resolutions  and  con- 
tract, and  the  reports  of  the  experts  rendered  to  Judge 
Owens  and  the  Board. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki.  I  think  that  any  interested 
party  may  make  a  request  for  copies  and  get  them.  Chair- 
man Kellermann.  I  think  anyone  can  have  a  copy.  We 
might  also  any  disinterested  parties.  Commissioner 
Czarnecki.  Yes,  any  one.  Commissioner  Taylor.  I  have 
no  objection.' 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  That  is  in  substance  what  he  told 
you? 

A.    I  think  so,  yes. 

Q.  It  does  not  relate  to  this  matter.  Now,  on  page  245, 
Doctor  Taylor.  Will  you  read  what  Doctor  Taylor  stated 
there?    A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Now  that  was  the  meeting  of  June  22nd. 

Mr.  Whittaker.    This  is  the  meeting  of  July  22nd. 

Mr.  Deneen.    All  the  Commissioners  were  present? 

Mr.  Whittaker.    All  three  were  present  (reading) : 

'Commissioner  Taylor.    Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  ask 

645  you  if  you  recall  the  order  of  the  motion  on  the  resolu- 
tion on  the  adoption  and  signing  of  the  contract,  at  yes- 
terday's meeting?  The  minutes  do  not  cite  it.  My  clear 
recollection  was  that  I  made  the  motion  myself,  then  called 
our  attorney,  Mr.  Mitchell,  to  read  the  contract.  We  dis- 
cussed that  for  some  time,  and  when  I  moved  the  adoption 
of  the  motion  and  you,  Mr.  Kellerman,  seconded  it  and 
I  then  put  it  to  the  Board  and  used  the  words  'the  ayes 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  141 

have  it, '  and  so  on.    Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  order  to  make 
assurance  doubly  sure,  I  move  that  the  action — ' 
646       Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Now  you  made  that  statement  when 
he  interrupted  you,  when  Mr.  Czarnecki  interrupted  you? 

A.    Yes,  sir, 

Mr.  Deneen.    Now  read  Mr.  Czarnecki 's  remark. 

Mr.  Whittakek  (reading).  'Commissioner  Czarnecki. 
I  wish  to  state  that  I  had  no  recollection  of  the  'second' 
to  the  motion — I  do  remember  a  'second'  on  another  mo- 
tion with  reference  to  the  man  from  San  Francisco  on 
another  matter,  but  I  recalled  no  'second'  on  the  motion 
to  adopt  and  sign  the  contract,  although  I  said  to  the 
stenographer  when  she  failed  to  find  it  in  her  notes,  that 
that  was  a  matter  which  Dr.  Taylor  would  recall.  I  had 
her  go  over  her  notes  and  it  was  not  in  her  notes,  and  I 
had  no  distinct  recollection  of  any  'second.'    I  called  up 

646  Dr.  Taylor  and  tried  to  reach  you,  Mr.  Kellerman,  on  the 
wire.' 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    That  statement  was  made,  was  it  not  ? 

A.    I  think  so. 

Q.    And  you  responded :    Read  it,  Mr.  Whittaker. 

Mr.  Whittakek  (reading).  'Commissioner  Taylor. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  that  the  action  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Board  at  the  last  meeting,  directing  and 
authorizing  any  two  of  the  Commissioners  and  the  Chief 
Clerk  to  execute  and  deliver  the  contract  read  before  the 
Board  to  purchase  one  thousand  Empire  Voting  Machines, 
be  hereby  ratified  and  approved.' 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    You  made  that  motion?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.     Commissioner  Kellerman  seconded  the  motion — 

647  A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    He  seconded  the  motion?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Now,  Commissioner  Taylor's  remark. 
Read  it,  Mr.  Whittaker. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  'Commissioner  Taylor. 
Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  the  motion.  All  in  favor  sig- 
nify by  saying '  aye ; '  contrary  '  nay. '  Commissioner  Tay- 
lor and  Kellerman  voted  'aye';  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
voted  'nay.' 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  That  was  a  correct  statement?  You 
made  the  motion  at  the  end?    A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Now,  Doctor  Taylor's — read  it,  Mr.  Whit- 
taker. 

Mr.    Whittaker    (reading).     'Commissioner    Taylor. 


142  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  the  adoption  of  the  following 
motion:  Resolved,  that  hereafter  all  documents  and 
records  and  official  duplicate  copies  thereof,  belonging  to 
this  Board,  shall  be  filed  and  indexed  in  the  vaults  of  this 
office  under  the  charge  of  the  Chief  Clerk,  and  that  no 
person  other  than  a  Commissioner  be  allowed  to  withdraw 
the  same  from  the  vault,  and  that  no  Commissioner  shall 
remove  them  except  by  filing  a  receipt  for  the  same,  and 
that  at  all  times,  except  when  in  actual  use  by  the  Board, 
the  minute-books  shall  be  kept  in  the  vault  where  they  may 
be  inspected  at  any  time  by  order  of  the  Commissioners, 
or  the  Chief  Clerk  or  the  Attorney.  I  move  the  adoption 
of  this  resolution. ' 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    You  made  that  motion?    A.    Yes,  sir. 
Mr.  Deneen.    Now,  Conmiissioner  Kellerman — read  it, 
648  Mr.  Whittaker. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  ' Commissioner  Kellerman. 
I  see  no  objection  to  it.  Commissioner  Czarnecki.  Just 
one  question.  Does  that  mean  that  if  a  member  of  the 
Board  makes  a  copy  of  a  resolution,  or  copy  of  contracts, 
or  copy  of  reports  here  for  himself,  that  he  is  not  per- 
mitted to  take  that  away  with  him!  Does  that  further 
bar  a  keeping  of  a  private  set  of  minutes  which  a  member 
648  of  the  Board  may  make  at  his  home  ?  I  want  to  know  if 
every  memorandum  which  would  pertain  to  Board  matters 
must  be  done  here  ? 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Did  he  make  that  statement?  A.  I 
think  so. 

Q.  You  then  said: — read  Dr.  Taylor's  remark,  Mr. 
Whittaker. 

Mr.  Whittaker  {reading).  "Commissioner  Taylor:  If 
you  will  read  the  resolution  you  will  see  it  says  'belong- 
ing to  the  Board. '  Now,  we  sometimes  make  several  cop- 
ies for  the  Board's  use.  My  thought  is  that  the  records 
shall  be  kept  in  the  vault  and  taken  care  of  in  some  sys- 
tematic order.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  has 
occurred  again  and  again  that  our  records  have  been  scat- 
tered around  here  and  there  and  if  a  Commissioner  wanted 
to  look  at  them  he  had  to  start  an  inquiry  before  he 
could  find  them.  It  is  not  businesslike,  it  is  not  the  prac- 
tice that  is  followed  in  various  clerical  offices  of  this  City. 
I  think  the  proper  thing  to  do  is  to  put  all  of  the  records 
in  the  vault,  index  them  so  they  can  be  easily  found,  so 
that  when  any  member  of  the  Board  wishes  to  see  them 
he  can  see  them.    That  is  my  thought." 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  143 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Did  you  make  that  statement?    A. 
Yes,  sir. 
649      Mr.  DENEEif.    Then  Commissioner  Czarnecki. 

Mr.  Whittaker  ( reading) .  ' '  Commissioner  Czarnecki : 
'I  wish  to  be  clear  on  the  proposition  of  having  the  right 
to  make  copies,  or  anybody  else  having  the  right  to  make 
copies  of  the  record  of  the  Board — will  any  person  out- 
side have  the  right  to  make  copies  of  the  records'?'  " 

Mr.  Deneen.    He  made  that  statement?    A.    I  think  so. 

Q.  And  then  you  make  this  statement: — read  it,  Mr. 
Whittaker. 

Mr.  Whittakek  (reading).  'Commissioner  Taylor:  No 
objection  to  anything  of  the  sort.  Conunissioner  Czar- 
necki: Will  it  require  a  special  permit  to  do  so,  or  is  it 
understood  now,  in  accordance  with  the  motion,  that  this 
does  not  apply  to  any  copies  which  may  be  made  by  indi- 
vidual members,  or  by  people  outside  who  might  wish 
copies  made  by  stenographers?  Commissioner  Taylor: 
No  objection  to  anybody  making  copies  for  themselves. 
I  speak  of  the  records  'belonging  to  the  Board.'  'Com- 
missioner Taylor.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  the  adoption  of 
this  motion.  Commissioner  Kellerman.  I  second  the 
motion.  Commissioner  Taylor.  Genltlemen,  you  have 
heard  the  motion.  All  in  favor  signify  by  saying  'aye.' 
Contrary  'nay.'  Commissioners  Kellerman  and  Taylor 
voting  '  aye. '  Commissioner  Czarnecki  stated  that  in  the 
649  light  of  Mr.  Hewitt's  point  just  made,  he  voted  'nay.' 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  That  motion  was  put  and  carried,  and 
those  statements  made  in  here  precede  it?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Mr.  Deneen.    Read  Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  statement. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (reading).  'Commissioner  Czarnecki. 
Gentlemen,  I  submit  the  following  resolution:  'Whereas, 
I  know  and  am  ready  to  take  my  oath  upon  it,  that  after  the 
refusal  of  the  majority  of  the  Board  to  adopt  a  series  of 
my  provisions  and  amendments  in  the  specifications,  in- 
cluding among  other — that  the  time  within  which  to  file 
bids  and  submit  a  machine  be  at  least  three  months  from 
the  date  of  the  adoption  of  the  specifications,  that  the 
amount  of  the  certified  check  required  to  be  put  up  in. 
escrow  be  for  one  and  not  five  per  cent,  of  the  price  of 
the  machine,  that  a  penalizing  clause  to  compel  prompt 
delivery  of  the  machines,  and  that  the  amount  of  the  Surety 
Company  bond  be  equal  to  the  cost  price  of  the  machines 
under  the  contract,  all  of  which  were  refused  and  over- 


144  Czarnecki  Makes  His  Position  Clear. 

ruled.  .  I  opposed,  refused  to  support  and  did  not  vote  for 
the  adoption  and  approval  of  the  specifications. 

'"Whereas,  I  know  and  distinctly  recall  that  I  voted  'no' 
650  on  the  proposition  of  the  adoption  and  approval  of  the 
specifications. 

'Whereas,  the  appearance  of  my  name  in  the  printed 
specifications  as  a  matter  of  form,  as  Secretary  of  the 
Board  is  contended  to  show  that  I  approved  these  speci- 
fications. 

'Whereas,  it  is  contended  that  the  specifications  were 
signed,  as  if  approved  by  signing  them. 

'I  move  that  the  specifications  so  alleged  to  be  signed, 
be  produced,  so  that  all  that  was  written  upon  such  speci- 
fications at  the  time  of  the  alleged  signing,  and  with  such 
alleged  signing  may  be  shown  and  made  a  part  of  the  min- 
utes of  this  Board,  because  the  specifications,  even  those 
for  the  printer,  were  not  signed  by  any  one  in  a  Board 
meeting. 

'  That  is  my  resolution. 

'I  offer  it  because  there  seems  to  be  some  misunder- 
standing as  to  how  I  stood  on  those  specifications,  and 
what  the  appearance  of  the  printed  name,  as  Secretary 
means.' 

Mr.  Deneek.    Q.    He  introduced  that  resolution,  did  he  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recall,  sir.  I  have  no  independent  recollec- 
tion about  it.  I  read  the  minutes  over  after  they  were 
produced,  as  I  say,  edited  them,  and  concluded  to  let  them 
go  in  that  report. ' ' 

652  It  was  the  custom  of  the  stenographer  of  the  Board  to 
write  up  the  minutes  immediately  and  hand  them  to  Mr. 
Czarnecki. 

' '  Mr.  McEwEN.  The  stenographer 's  report  in  full  of  all 
the  talk? 

"The  Witness.  A.  Yes,  of  everything,  and  Mr.  Czarn- 
eki  put  them  away  and  he  took  care  of  them.  I  think,  more 
through  carelessness  than  anything  else,  I  have  no  charge 
to  make  against  him,  but  we  have  had  a  hard  time  trying 
to  get  hold  of  them. ' ' 

The  Commissioners  asked  Mr.  Czarnecki  to  put  these 
matters  in  the  vault. 

653  The  purpose  of  Dr.  Taylor's  resolution  was  to  have  the 
minutes  when  they  were  written  up  kept  in  the  vault  and 
properly  indexed.    This  was  not  carried  out. 

654  "The  Witness.    For  months,  for  more  than  a  year,  I 


Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor.  145 

and  Mr.  Kellermann,  at  intervals  would  say  to  Mr.  Czarn- 
ecki:  'Now  get  out  those  minutes  and  let  us  get  them 
into  the  books  after  being  approved  by  the  Board.'  We 
both  did  it,  we  did  it  separately,  and  we  asked  the  stenog- 
rapher to  get  them  out  so  as  to  get  them  in  form  and  get 
them  into  the  books,  and  we  didn't  succeed  in  getting 
them  until  just  a  little  while  before  you  gentlemen  came  up 
here,  we  got  them  actually  written  into  the  books." 

Sometimes  the  Conunissioners  got  from  the  stenogra- 
pher loose  sheets  of  the  reported  proceedings,  sometimes 
not.    But  the  sheets  were  not  to  become  the  official  records 

655  of  the  Board. 

656  When  Commissioner  Czarnecki  showed  the  memoran- 
dum of  minutes  of  the  Board,  there  was  a  jar  full  of  them 
(indicating  about  six  or  eight  inches  thick). 

659  The  reports  of  Judge  Owens'  experts  were  locked  up  in 
the  vaults  in  charge  of  Mr.  Stuart,  and  not  in  possession  of 
Mr.  Czarnecki  all  this  time. 

661  Neither  Commissioners  Czarnecki,  Kellermann  nor  Tay- 
lor had  the  combination  of  the  vault  in  the  Election  Com- 
missioners'  office  so  as  to  get  into  it.  A  special  vault 
clerk  has  the  combination. 

662  Witness  thinks  that  the  correspondence  with  all  the 
voting  machine  companies  came  to  the  Chief  Clerk.  Wit- 
ness cannot  recall  receiving  any.  Witness  made  a  motion 
that  the  Chief  Clerk  should  take  care  of  such  correspon- 
dents, and  presumes  it  was  carried  out. 

Concerning  Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motion  regarding 
whether  or  not  he  had  approved  the  specifications,  the 
minutes  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  was  then 
read  into  the  record  as  follows : 
663-667    "That  is  my  resolution. 

"I  offer  it  because  there  seems  to  be  some  misunder- 
standing as  to  how  I  stood  on  those  specifications  and  what 

663  the  appearance  of  the  printed  name,  as  Secretary,  means. 

Commissioner  Taylor.  I  ask  if  you  are  not  willing  to 
let  that  go  over  f 

Commissioner  Czarnecki.  Did  I  hear  a  second  to  the 
motion  just  made?  I  think  not.  Then  there  is  another 
motion  I  wish  to  make  now.  I  move  that  either  all  that  was 
written  under  the  specifications  be  made  a  part  of  them, 
including  the  explanation  under  which  the  document  was 
signed,  or  that  the  secretary's  name  be  withdrawn  there- 
from, because  its  presence  there  without  the  explanation 


146        Czarnechi  Points  Out  Objections  to  Contract. 

might  be  misleading  and  has  been  misunderstood  by  every 
one  of  the  members  of  this  Board.  Do  I  hear  a  second  to 
this  motion?    I  do  not. 

Then  Commissioner  Czarnecki  stated  that  pursuant  to 
his  announcement  made  yesterday  when  he  was  taken  by 
surprise,  by  having  the  question  of  the  voting  machine  con- 
tract brought  up  unexpectedly  before  the  Board,  the  con- 
tract there  being  read  for  the  first  time  and  without  any 
opportunity  to  study  it,  there  being  voted  upon  and  passed 
664  by  a  vote  of  two  to  one,  he  hereby  presents  the  following 
specific  objections  to  the  contract  in  support  of  his  vote 
against  the  adoption,  approval  and  acceptance  of  the  con- 
tract. 

664  'That  the  contract  does  not  properly  safeguard  the 
Election  Board  and  the  City  of  Chicago. 

'That  the  Board  is  exceeding  its  legal  authority  to 
make  such  a  contract.' 

Mr.  Deneen-.  Then  I  will  ask  you.  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki made  the  statements  as  revealed  there  in  substance ! 

A.     I  have  no  independent  recollection  of  it  at  all. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  approved  it  as  a 
part  of  the  record. 

A.    Well,  yes. 

Q.     Now,  read  the  next. 

Mr.  Whittakeb.  Then  Commissioner  Czarnecki  stated 
'That  the  voting  machines  purchased  under  the  provisions 
of  the  contract  is  a  heavy,  unwieldy  and  impractical  de- 
vice which  will  not  save  money  but  which  will  require  a 
large  expense  for  storage,  handling  and  cartage. 

'That  the  contract  is  of  special  advantage  to  the  Com- 
pany and  of  special  disadvantage  to  the  Election  Board. 

'That  before  the  contract  is  entered  into  there  should 

665  be  more  time  and  more  opportunity  given  to  a  wider 
competition. 

'  That  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  does  not  contain  all 
the  required  improvements,  but  that  each  one  of  the  other 
machines  in  the  competition  have  special  features  the  need 
of  each  one  of  which  is  essential  with  other  things  to  make 
a  practical  machine. 

'That  sufficient  time  should  be  granted  to  every  Com- 
missioner to  read  and  study  every  action  and  portion  of 
the  proposed  contract  before  an  attempt  is  made  to  have 
it  passed  and  approved. 

'That  the  contract  binds  the  Board  to  buy  a  larger 
number  of  machines  than  business  dictates. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  147 

'That  120  machines  should  first  be  tried  out  before  any 
more  are  contracted  for. 

'  In  addition  to  the  above  Commissioner  Czarnecki  reit- 
erated other  objections  which  he  had  previously  raised 
with  reference  to  the  voting  machines. 

'  Commissioner  Taylor  stated  that  all  points  of  Commis- 
sioner Czarnecki  could  be  entered  of  record,  but  that  his 
extensive  remarks  should  be  eliminated  from  the  min- 
utes.' 

Mr.  Dbneen.  Did  Commissioner  Czarnecki  file  that 
protest? 

A.     I  think  there  was  a  sort  of  a  final  shower. 
Q.     But  no  attention  paid  to  it  except  to  raise  an  um- 
666  brella?    A.    No,  sir. 

Mr.  Whittakeb  (reading).  'W.  J.  Lausterer  of  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  of  Jamestown,  N.  Y., 
appeared  before  the  Board  and  declared  he  came  for  his 
company  to  receive  the  certified  check  held  in  escrow  to 
secure  the  bid. 

'Chairman  Kellermann  announced  that  he  would  tele- 
phone to  the  bank  and  make  arrangements  that  the  cer- 
tified check  could  be  returned  today. 

'Commissioner  Czarnecki  asked  if  a  special  order  of 
the  Board  is  necessary  or  whether  the  return  of  the  un- 
successful companies  checks  meant  that  upon  request  the 
Empire  Company  should  also  receive  its  check. 

Mr.  Deneex.  Q.  Those  statements  were  made,  I  pre- 
sume? 

A.     Yes,  sir;  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Whittakeb  (reading).  'Commissioner  Taylor  de- 
clared that  it  was  unnecessary  to  make  a  special  order 
inasmuch  as  the  majority  was  acting  in  harmony  upon 
the  subject  and  all  were  agreed  not  to  refuse  the  check. 

'Commissioner  Czarnecki  declared  the  check  should  re- 
main in  escrow  until  the  sample  machine  is  delivered. 

'Chairman  Kellei*mann  announced  that  the  bank  people 
would  wait  even  after  the  banking  hours  today  and  will 
give  the  certified  check  at  once,  and  moved  that  all  hurry 
to  the  bank  without  further  discussion. 
667  'Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  that  the  Board  ad- 
journ, which  was  done.  The  Commissioners  and  Mr. 
Lausterer  thereupon  going  to  the  Continental  Commer- 
cial National  Bank,  where  a  certified  check  signed  by 
Chas.  H.  Kellermann,  Chairman,  Anthony  Czarnecki,  Sec- 


148  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

retary,  Howard  S.  Taylor,  for  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners, was  turned  over  to  Mr.  Lausterer. ' 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Those  statements  were  made,  that 
statement  by  you  1 

A.    Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q.  That  represents  the  facts?  A.  I  think  that  is 
true." 

The  witness  does  not  think  that  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki's  protest  about  the  unwieldiness  of  the  machine  re- 
ceived any  consideration.     The  machine  weighed  1,120 
pounds  with  the  case. 
668      The  machine  had  to  be  handled  a  number  of  times  for 

each  election,  perhaps  ten. 
668-9  ' '  Q.  Instead  of  asking  you  a  question,  I  am  going  to 
read  to  you  this, — it  is  a  calculation  that  has  been  made, 
— and  ask  you  if  it  is  substantially  correct :  '  The  machine 
weighed,  with  its  box,  1,190  pounds,  handled  ten  times 
with  each  election,  that  made  11,900  pounds,  and  if  there 
are  four  elections  a  year,  that  makes  47,600  pounds,  and 
for  a  thousand  machines,  it  would  require  to  handle,  which 
would  be  47,600,000,'  which  is  23,800  tons,— that  is  about 
it  as  you  would  say?  A.  Yes,  I  say  it  is  possible,  I  have 
not  gone  into  that  computation. 

"Q.  If  the  average  carload  fixed  by  the  Central 
Freight  Association  here  is  19.3  tons  to  a  car,  that  would 
make  1,233  carloads  and  would  make  a  train  nine  and  one- 
half  miles  long  to  handle  your  machines,  once  a  year, 
would  you  call  that  an  unwieldy  machine  or  otherwise? 
A.     No,  sir;  I  don't  think  it  would. 

"Q.  That  is  about  four  and  one-half  times  as  much 
metal  as  there  is  in  the  First  National  Bank  in  this  city. 
A.    Yes. 

"Q.  And  more  than  any  building  in  the  city,  you  say 
that  would  not  be  unwieldy?  A.  You  might  say,  by  the 
same  computation,  a  man  in  the  course  of  an  ordinary 
lifetime  would  eat  food  amounting  to  the  size  of  a  house, 
but  it  would  not  appear  unreasonable,  it  would  not  be  a 
very  unreasonable  thing,  as  I  said  yesterday.  Indian- 
apolis has  been  handling  machines  weighing  1,400  pounds 
for  eleven  years,  and  are  very  much  in  love  with  the  ma- 
chines, according  to  the  official  testimonies  of  the  Mayor 
and  the  City  Clerk  and  the  Auditor  and  the  Election  Com- 
missioners, and  leading  citizens, — and  another  thing  that 
occurs  to  me  pertinent  on  that  question,  is  this:  that  if 
we  would  take  the  International  Machine  or  the  Triumph 


The  City  Notified  After  Contract  Made.  149 

Machine,  which  is  slightly  smaller,  still  they  are  large, 
and  by  the  same  computation  you  might  get  a  trainload 
of  them." 

669  The  Election  Commissioners  had  special  devices  where- 
by one  man  could  lift  a  voting  machine  into  a  box.  This 
device  was  not  taken  to  each  precinct  in  the  City. 

670  It  required  four  men  to  handle  a  voting  machine. 
"Mr.  Deneen.     Now  take  the  meeting  of  November 

16th. 
671-5    "Mr.  Whittakeh  (reading).    Board  met  at  the  call  of 

671  the  Chair.  'Present:  Commissioners  Kellermann,  Taylor 
and  Czarnecki. 

'Commissioner  Taylor  said  'Our  contract  with  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company  requires  us  to  notify  the 
governing  authority,  the  Mayor  and  the  City  Council, 
that  the  Board  had  entered  into  a  contract  with  the  Em- 

672  pire  Voting  Machine  Company  for  the  purchase  of  one 
thousand  voting  machines.  Such  notices  should  be  ample 
to  thoroughly  inform  the  Mayor  and  the  City  Council  of 
the  nature  of  the  contract. ' 

'Commissioner  Taylor  moved  that  the  Chief  Clerk  be 
directed  to  serve  upon  the  City  Clerk  and  through  him 
upon  the  Mayor  and  the  City  Council,  the  following  notice 
which  has  been  submitted  to  the  Attorney  of  the  Board, 
who  has  prepared  the  same  with  the  contract  and  ap- 
proved the  notice. ' 

The  Chairman.  You  said  Chief  Clerk  there;  it  should 
have  been  City  Clerk. 

Mr.  Whittakee.    If  I  said  Chief  Clerk  it  was  a  mistake. 

Mr,  Landee.    Yes,  the  Mayor  and  the  City  Clerk. 

Mr.  Whittakee.  Yes.  (Reading)  'To  the  Mayor  and 
Common  Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Care  of  the  City  Clerk  of  Chicago,  Gbeeting  : 
Gentlemen  : 

Acting  under  and  pursuant  to  power  and  authority 
vested  in  us  by  the  laws  of  Illinois,  we  have  heretofore 
on  the  25th  day  of  July,  1911,  entered  into  a  contract  with 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  of  Jamestown, 
N.  Y.,  for  the  purchase  of  one  thousand  (1,000)  voting 
machines  at  Nine  Hundred  Forty-two  Dollars  and  fifty 

673  cents  ($942.50)  each,  or  for  the  total  of  Nine  Hundred 
Forty-two  Thousand  and  Five  hundred  Dollars  ($942,- 
500). 

A  copy  of  this  contract  is  attached  hereto. 


150  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

Sections  3  and  13  of  this  contract  specify  the  rate  at 
which  these  machines  are  to  be  delivered,  and  Section  11 
specifies  the  manner  in  which  the  machines  shall  be  paid 
for. 

For  the  purpose  of  paying  for  these  voting  machines, 
we  request  your  Honorable  Body  to  provide  in  the  City 
Treasury  money  not  otherwise  appropriated,  at  the  fol- 
lowing times  and  in  the  following  amounts. 

1.  Within  the  current  period  expiring  March  21, 
1912,  the  sum  of  One  hundred  eighty-eight  thousand,  five 
hundred  dollars,  $188,500)  in  such  installments  as  may 
be  necessary  to  pay  for  the  two  hundred  (200)  voting 
machines  as  they  may  have  been  delivered  from  time  to 
time  during  that  period  under  the  terms  of  said  contract, 
or  to  pay  at  once  for  the  two  hundred  (200)  voting  ma- 
chines if  the  entire  amount  shall  be  delivered  at  one  time. 

2.  Within  the  period  between  March  21,  1912,  and 
October  25,  1912,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  eighty-two 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  ($282,750)  in 
such  installments  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay  for  three 
hundred  (300)  additional  voting  machines  as  they  may 
have  been  delivered  from  time  to  time  during  that  pe- 

674  riod  under  the  terms  of  said  contract,  or  to  pay  at  once 
for  three  hundred  (300)  voting  machines  if  the  entire 
amount  shall  be  delivered  at  one  time. 

3.  Within  the  period  between  October  21,  1912,  and 
April  21,  1913,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  thirty-five  thou- 
sand six  himdred  and  twenty-five  dollars  ($235,625)  in 
such  installments  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay  for  two 
hundred  and  fifty  (250)  voting  machines  as  they  may 
have  been  delivered  from  time  to  time  during  that  pe- 
riod under  the  terms  of  said  contract,  or  to  pay  at  once 
for  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  (250)  voting  machines  if 
the  entire  amount  shall  be  delivered  at  one  time. 

4.  Within  the  period  between  April  21,  1913,  and  be- 
fore September  21,  1913,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  thirty- 
five  thousand  six  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  ($235,- 
625)  in  such  installments  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay  for 
two  hundred  and  fifty  (250)  voting  machines  as  they  may 
have  been  delivered  from  time  to  time  during  that  pe- 
riod under  the  terms  of  said  contract,  or  to  pay  at  once 
for  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  (250)  additional  voting 
machines  if  the  entire  amount  shall  be  delivered  at  one 
time. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  151 

We  further  request  you  to  promptly  levy  and  direct 
annual  tax  that  may  be  needed  to  provide  in  the  City 
Treasury  any  part  or  parts  of  the  aforesaid  sums,  pro- 
vided to  be  paid  under  the  terms  of  said  contract,  to- 
gether with  the  interest  thereon,  that  may  become  pay- 
able under  paragraph  12  of  the  contract  in  case  the  ma- 
chines are  not  paid  for  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  the 
date  of  the  delivery  or  acceptance  thereof. 

Ohas.  H.   Keixermann, 
Howard  &'.  Taylor, 
Anthony  Czarnecki, 
{by  direction  of  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  and  ex-officio  of  the  Totim 
of  Cicero), 

W.  H.  Stuabt, 

Chief  Cleric. 
John  E.  Owens, 

675  County  Judge. 

Commissioner  Kellermann  seconded  the  motion,  which 
was  carried,  Commissioner  Czarnecki  voting  nay. 

Thereupon  the  Board  turned  its  attention  to  other 
matters." 

Mr.  Dbneen.    Was  that  notice  sent? 

A.     I  think  that  is  correct,  sir. 

676  The  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  December  28th,  1911, 
were  then  read: — 

"Mr.  Whittaker.  I  read  the  minutes  in  full  after  the 
statement  of  who  were  present.  (Reading.)  Commis- 
sioner Kellermann  presented  to  the  Board  a  communica- 
tion from  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  and 
announcing  that  the  Company  is  now  ready  to  deliver 
an  installment  of  fifty  (50)  machines  under  their  con- 
tract with  the  Board,  that  the  machines  have  been  duly 
inspected  by  the  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commission- 
ers of  the  State,  and  that  the  Company  has  now  in  the 
City  one  (1)  of  the  said  fifty  (50)  voting  machines  in- 
stalled at  the  Sherman  House,  Room  800,  and  invites  the 
Board  or  any  of  its  members  to  visit  and  inspect  said 
machine. 

"Said  letter  also  enclosed  a  copy  of  the  report  of  the 
State  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  showinar  that  the 
machine  now  on  exhibition  at  the  Sherman  House  has 


k 


152  First  Voting  Machine  Delivery. 

been  duly  inspected  by  the  Voting  Machine  Commission- 
ers and  found  to  be  correct  and  competent  under  the 
law,  and  the  letter  further  states  that  the  original  report 
of  the  said  Voting  Machine  Commissioners  has  been  duly 
filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State. 

"Commissioner  Taylor  moved  that  the  letter  from  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  and  copy  of  said  re- 
port be  received  and  placed  on  file.' 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Is  that  a  correct  statement? 

"A.     I  believe  that  is  correct." 

677  After  voting  machines  were  delivered  a  storage  room 
was  rented.  Witness  cannot  say  for  how  much  per 
month.  Witness  cannot  say  whether  the  number  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Board  has  been  increased  since  500  voting 
machines  had  been  secured,  or  how  many  men  are  em- 
ployed at  the  storage  house.  Has  no  information  upon 
the  subject. 

678  The  fact  that  keys  had  been  broken  in  moving  the  ma- 
chines had  been  called  to  the  attention  to  the  Board  by 
judges  and  clerks  on  election  day  who  failed  to  get  them 
together  properly.  This  was  a  matter  of  no  consequence 
so  far  as  the  machines  were  concerned. 

Witness  thinks  there  was  one  case  where  there  was  a 
broken  key  and  its  place  was  supplied,  but  witness  is 
not  sure  about  it. 

Witness  has  not  heard  of  any  complaints  regarding 
the  operation  of  the  machine  in  the  witness'  own  ward 
and  has  never  heard  that  a  machine  refused  to  operate 
in  the  morning  in  the  Longwood  precinct  and  that  it 
was  necessary  to  send  out  an  expert  who  failed  and  an- 
other had  to  be  sent,  or  that  the  Longwood  machine 
didn't  begin  operating  until  ten  o'clock.  Longwood  is 
the  witness'  own  district. 

679  The  witness  did  not  hear  anything  about  a  machine 
in  the  36th  Precinct  of  the  31st  or  32nd  Ward  losing  151 
votes.    Witness  does  not  believe  that  was  the  case. 

"The  Witness.  A.  I  think,  Governor,  you  are  eon- 
fusing,  there  was  a  lot  of  votes  lost  on  the  State's  Attor- 
ney issue  in  the  30th,  31st,  32nd  and  35th  Wards,  but 
they  were  not  lost  on  the  machine,  they  could  not  be  lost 
on  the  machine." 

Witness  thinks  that  if  any  votes  were  lost  in  any  pre- 
cinct they  were  lost  on  the  paper  ballots  and  not  on  the 


Witness'  View  of  Supreme  Court  Decision.  153 

machine.    Witness  never  heard  of  any  votes  being  lost 
on  the  machine. 

680  Witness  knows  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
regarding  the  provision  of  the  law  requiring  that  a  vot- 
ing machine  shall  enable  the  voter  to  vote  in  one  minute 
and  states  that  since  the  decision  the  Commission  has  in- 
sisted upon  further  payment  for  the  machines. 

"Q.  And  insisting  on  it  now,  aren't  they?  A.  Yes, 
sir,  we  have;  we  think  that  is  a  valid  contract,  the  ma- 
chine is  a  valid  machine. 

"Q.  Have  you  saved  any  money  on  printing  since 
these  machines  were  installed!  A.  I  don't  know  that, 
I  think  that  is  very  doubtful. 

"Q.  Or  cartage!  A.  I  don't  think  it  has,  it  is  very 
doubtful  for  several  reasons,  owing  to  the  legal  con- 
tests, the  conditions,  investigations,  etc.,  we  have  not 
been  able  to  pursue  the  voting  machine  methods  that 
have  approval  everywhere  else. 

"Q.  What  is  the  cost  of  the  cartage  for  each,  cost  of 
taking  out  these  machines,  the  Empire,  to  the  polling 
place!    A.    I  cannot  remember  that. 

"Q.    $5  a  trip! 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  They  have  spent  as  high  as  $6  a  trip, 
but  they  contend  that  the  ultimate  round-trip  expense 
will  be  $3. 

681  "Mr.  Deneen.    $3! 

"Mr.  McEwEK.     For  each  machine. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  And  5  per  cent,  on  $942  would  be  over 
$45  a  year,  on  your  investment. 

"A.    How  is  that!    I  don't  get  you. 

"Q.     The  machine  costs  |942?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  And  5  per  cent,  on  nine  hundred,  to  make  it  easy 
calculation,  would  be  $45?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  And  then  your  charge  for  electricity,  bulbs  and 
such,  in  the  arrangement  would  be  a  little  more?  A. 
Would  be  a  very  small  amount. 

"Q.    You  haven't  figured  that  out,  have  you!    A.    No. 

"Q.  In  the  cheapening  of  the  cost  of  election,  did  you 
consider  that  the  income  on  the  money  you  spent,  the 
interest  on  the  money  you  spent,  would  be  an  item!  A. 
Yes,  I  contemplated  that. 

"Q.  That  was  taken  into  consideration  in  your  esti- 
mate, that  it  would  be  cheaper  to  have  machines  than  to 
have  ballot  boxes!    A.     I  have  no  doubt  about  it,  that 


154  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

is  the  experience  in  all  cities  where  they  have  used  them, 
in  Indianapolis  and  Milwaukee  they  certify  on  oath  be- 
fore officials  that  in  the  eleven  years,  ten  years  they  have 
saved  the  entire  price  or  cost  of  the  machines. 

"Q.     That  certificate  was  made  in  Minneapolis,  too, 

682  wasn't  it?    A.     How  is  that! 

"Q.  A  statement  like  that!  A.  There  is  a  statement 
there  from  Minneapolis. 

"Q.  And  then —  A.  I  don't  think  they  make  that 
statement. 

"Q.  And  then  later  they  had  to  put  in  two  machines? 
A.  Well,  it  was,  there  was  an  urgency  at  a  particular 
time  and  under  particular  circumstances  where  they 
have  to  put  in  two  machines. 

"Q.  Later,  that  urgency  culminated  in  repealing  the 
law  or  requiring  ballots  in  their  place!  A.  I  don't  know 
that. 

683  Recent  reports  from  Minneapolis  are  extravagantly 
favorable  to  the  voting  machines. 

684  Witness  does  not  think  that  9,000  votes  were  lost  in 
the  State's  Attorney  contest  in  Cook  County  last  fall, 
but  only  temporarily  held  up  by  Judge  Baldwin. 

Witness  thinks  that  by  the  precedent  of  the  Supreme 
Court  most  of  the  ballots  held  up  will  be  found  to  be 
valid  ballots.  Every  vote  to  which  there  was  any  objec- 
tion was  held  up  for  future  decision. 
686  Witness  has  not  read  that  17  men  voted  for  a  candi- 
date in  one  of  the  precincts  where  the  machine  showed 
only  one  vote  and  thinks  he  knows  it  is  not  true. 

Witness  does  not  believe  that  any  man  can  go  to  the 
voting  machine  now  in  the  room  and  make  it  lie,  it  is  not 
possible. 

688  "Representative  Jayne.  Q.  Doctor,  do  you  know  of 
any  city  that  has  purchased  any  Empire  machines  since 
the  Chicago  purchase  was  made? 

"A.  I  cannot  say  certainly;  I  think  tliose  that  were 
bought  at  South  Bend  were  bought  after  ours  were.  I 
may  be  in  error." 

Witness  thinks  that  he  knew  that  action  was  taken  on 
the  voting  machine  matter  when  the  experts  finished  their 
report. 

689  This  was  about  June  26th. 

"Q.  You  made  a  remark  the  other  day  you  said  it  was 
generally  understood  between    Mr.  Kellermann,  Judge 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  155 

Owens  and  Stuart  and  yourself  that  the  voting  machine 
matter  would  be  started?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  Now,  Mr.  Stuart  is  not  a  member  of  the  Board, 
is  he!  A.  But  he  is  a  statutory  officer  and  occupying  a 
prominent  place ;  an  executive  who  has  to  do  a  great  deal 
with  the  voting  machine,  and,  naturally,  while  he  had  not 
any  vote,  naturally,  we  listened  a  great  deal  to  his  sug- 
gestion. ' ' 

Mr.  Stuart  was  appointed  by  the  Board  and  confirmed 
by  the  County  Court. 

689  Witness  in  his  book,  "The  Truth  about  the  Voting 
Machine  Deal,"  stated  that  the  counters  could  not  be 
altered  without  the  use  of  the  five  keys.  The  judges  and 
clerks   could  not  operate  them  without  getting  all  the 

690  keys  together.  In  regard  to  witness'  former  testimony 
about  Indianapolis  and  Milwaukee  having  some  scheme 
regarding  saving  money  at  elections,  witness  does  not 
know  that  he  had  any  talk  about  those  subjects  with  rep- 
resentative of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company, 
but  had  a  lot  of  literature  directed  to  his  attention  and, 
in  preparing  his  speech  at  the  City  Club,  wrote  mayors 
and  executive  officers  and  got  replies,  telegrams,  and 
read  them  aloud  during  his  speech.  He  had  such  re- 
plies from  Indianapolis  and  Milwaukee. 

691  In  what  witness  has  previously  stated  about  a  man  be- 
ing able  to  vote  in  a  minute,  he  meant  that  if  a  man  went 
into  a  machine  without  looking  at  the  ticket  and  how  it 
"was  to  be  voted  he  would  be  delayed,  but  if  he  studied 
this  matter  for  a  few  minutes  before  going  into  the 
booth  he  ought  to  go  in  there  and  vote  in  a  minute.  "I 
have  no  doubt  that  any  ordinary  intelligent  man  could." 

It  is  not  a  fact  that  blueprints  and  specifications 
would  be  of  any  assistance  to  experts  in  checking  up  the 
machine. 

Witness  had  seen  the  Winslow  machine  in  the  Rand- 
McNally  Building  and  probably  put  in  as  much  time  ex- 
amining it  as  he  did  the  Empire  machine. 

692  "I  didn't  attempt  to  go  into  the  interior  of  it." 
"Representative   Jayne.     Q.     There  is   one   question 

I  would  like  to  ask  you  because  I  didn't  fully  understand 
it.  Up  until  the  time  the  contract  was  awarded  to  the 
Empire  Company,  had  they  ever  produced  or  shown  a 
machine  like  the  one  you  actually  purchased  under  the 
contract  ? 


156  Confusion  Over  9-Party  70-Key  Machine. 


n 


'A.  Well,  that  is  a  point  I  am  very  much  confused 
on;  but  apparently  from  the  records,  we  had  here  this 
morning,  they  had  produced  a  9-column,  70-key  machine, 
and  it  had  been  approved,  got  a  certificate  from  our  ex- 
perts ;  that  is  my  impression,  but  I  confess  I  am  confused 
about  that." 

Witness  and  Mr.  Kellermann  constituted  a  majority 
of  the  Board  and  witness  can  hardly  explain  now  why 
they  didn't  get  a  new  secretary  during  the  trouble  over 
the  minutes.  They  thought  the  matter  would  be  fixed 
up  from  week  to  week  and  month  to  month.  Mr.  Czar- 
necki  was  pleasant,  and  was  the  minority  member  of  the 

693  Board  and  witness  did  not  feel  like  driving.    He  simply 
politely  invited. 

Senator  Landee  asked  if  it  is  not  a  fact  that  the  first 
complete  Empire  machine  was  not  examined  by  the  State 
Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners  December  18th 
and  approved  by  them.  Witness  answered,  "Well,  that 
is  a  question  that  I  am  puzzled  over;  I  do  not  know;  but 
I  think,  my  recollection  now  is  that  a  9,  70  had  been  pro- 
duced and  examined  and  approved  by  our  experts  be- 
fore we  ever  signed  the  contract." 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  That  is  not  the  question.  That  is 
just  where  the  difference  is.  Before  the  signing  of  the 
contract,  a  full  sized  machine  was  produced,  but  tht 
question  of  Senator  Landee  was  whether  at  the  time  of 
the  awarding  of  the  contract  it  had  been  done. 

' '  Senator  Landee.    Q.    At  the  time  of  the  award. 

"A.  No,  but  we  understood, — I  should  say  I  under- 
stood that  it  was  simply  a  question  of  coupling  a  few 

694  more  cars  onto  a  train;  that  the  mechanism  was  all  just 
alike. 

"Q.  Up  to  that  time,  there  had  not  been  any  machine 
of  the  Empire  Company  such  as  was  awarded  for,  on 
trial,  or  voted  on  at  any  election  in  the  City  of  Chicago? 
A.  I  am  not  sure  about  that.  I  think  there  was  one 
under  the  old  Board.  They  had  the  machine  that  was 
examined  by  the  experts,  Empire  machine,  in  1909. 
Whether  it  had  been  used,  if  there  was  one,  I  don't 
know — "  A.  I  don't  know  whether  the  Illinois  Voting 
Machine  Commissioners  had  examined  and  validated  the 
Empire  machine  that  was  exhibited  in  1909;  but  I  am 
confident  if  you  wish  to  look  up  those  reports  of  the  old 

695  experts,  you  will  find  that  an  Empire  machine  was  ex- 
amined here  in  the  City  of  Chicago  in  1909  in  the  fall." 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  157 

"The  Witness.  I  am  talking  about  the  local  experts 
here." 

"Senator  Landee.    I  was  referring  to  the  State." 

The  report  of  Professor  Depuy  made  in  1909  is  pro- 
duced by  the  witness,  who  states  that  it  says  that  they 
had  examined  an  Empire  machine. 

"Senator  Landee.  Q.  Was  not  that  Empire  machine 
of  the  United  States  Standard  type? 

"Mr.  Deneen.  That  is  what  it  was;  owned  by  the 
Empire  Company.     Was  it  not? 

"A.  No,  it  was  an  Empire,  I  assume.  There  is  the 
signature. ' ' 

697  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEtven. 

Witness  had  seen  various  reports  of  officials  in  the 
State  of  New  Jersey  in  forming  his  knowledge  of  the 
efficiency,  practicability  and  adaptability  and  advisability 
of  purchasing  them.  They  were  on  file  in  the  Election 
Commissioners'  office. 

Mr.  McEwen  shows  witness  several  documents  marked 
for  identification  3/0,  4/0,  5/0,  6/0,  7/0  and  8/0. 

These  documents  witness  identifies  as  those  he  referred 
to  as  having  seen  prior  to  the  voting  machine  proceed- 
ings regarding  which  he  has  testified. 
698-9  "Mr.  McEwen.  The  document  mentioned  as  3/0  is 
described  on  the  title  page  as  the  State  Board  of  Voting 
Machine  Commissioners'  Eeport  to  the  Governor,  De- 
cember 30,  1905,  does  not  say  what  State,  but  printed 
at  Trenton,  New  Jersey,  the  one  referred  to  as  4/0  is 
described  as  the  annual  report  of  the  S'tate  Board  of 
Voting  Machine  Commissioners  of  New  Jersey,  of  date 
December  31,  1906.  The  one  marked  5/0  is  described  as 
the  annual  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  regarding  the 
use  of  machines,  made  in  pursuance  to  provisions  of  Sec- 
tion 37  of  Chapter  215  of  the  laws  of  1905  of  Chapter  268 
of  the  laws  of  1907.  December  3Q,  1907. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    What  state.  New  Jersey? 

"Mr.  McEwen.     These  are  all  New  Jersey. 

"Mr.  Denebn.    Yes. 

"Mr.  McEwen.  The  one  marked  6/0  is  the  annual  re- 
port of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  New  Jersey  relative 
to  paper  ballots  and  voting  machines  and  excerpts  of  the 
Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  dated  December 


158  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

22nd,  1908,  treating  on  the  paper  ballots  as  used  in  New 
Jersey  and  other  states  and  the  use  of  voting  machines 
in  New  Jersey.  7/0  is  the  report  of  the  Committee  in- 
vestigating ballots  during  the  legislative  session  of  1908, 
8/0  is  the  annual  report  of  the  Election  Division  of  the 
Department  of  State  including  the  report  on  voting  ma- 
chines, December  21,  1909. 

' '  Q.  And  those  reports  as  you  read  them  you  consider 
all  to  be  favorable! 

"The  Witness.    Yes,  sir,  eminently  so." 
699      As  the  witness  read  these  reports  he  considered  them 
all  to  be  favorable. 

At  the  time  of  exercising  his  judgment  on  the  voting 
machine  matter  and  before  he  had  learned  "that  there 
were  several  patents;  I  don't  know  how  many,  but  a 
large  number  of  valuable  patents." 

The  counters  were  substantially  of  the  Veeder  meter 
670  pattern.  They  are  made  by  the  Veeder  Cyclometer  Com- 
pany and  have  to  be  bought  by  this  company.  There 
would  be  700  of  them  in  a  machine  of  this  size.  They  are 
used  in  every  machine  of  the  Empire  9-party,  70-key  pat- 
tern. 

"Q.  What  were  you  informed  at  this  time  was  the 
cost  in  royalties  of  each  of  these  counters?  A.  Forty- 
five  cents  each. 

"Q.     Of  the  700?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  So  that  there  was  involved  in  the  cost  of  the  ma- 
chine the  sum  of  $315!    A.    Yes,  sir. 

' '  Q.  And  paid  for,  and  the  royalty  to  the  Veeder  Meter 
or  Cyclometer  Company — whatever  the  designation  is, 
the  sum  of  $315?  A.  Yes,  sir,  to  each  machine,  and  the 
other  machines  use  the  same  meter,  that  is,  the  Veeder 
meter.  Those  are  not  printed,  the  Winslow  and  the  Tri- 
umph use  the  Veeder  meters  also,  I  think. 
701  The  witness  was  informed  at  this  time  of  the  general 
use  made  of  Veeder  meters  in  voting  machines  and  other 
devices. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Tar/lor.  159 


VOLUME  IX. 

Tuesday,  July  29,  1913. 
9:30  o'clock  A.  M. 

703  HowAED  S.  Taylor  : 

Resumes  the  stand  for  further  cross-examination  by 
Mr.  McEwen. 

The  County  Judge  appoints  the  Election  Commission- 
ers and  they  hold  their  sessions  or  meetings  independ- 
ently of  him,  that  is,  he  does  not  attend  their  sessions, 
usually.-  Does  not  participate  in  the  Election  Commis- 
sion meetings  at  all  ordinarily.    The  Commissioners  con- 

704  suit  with  him  infonnally,  individually.  No  part  of  the 
action  of  the  Election  Commissioners  in  regard  to  the 
voting  machines  was  directed  by  the  County  Judge,  ex- 
cept in  the  broad  particular  that  he  favored  the  install- 
ing of  voting  machines.  Witness  thinks  that  no  act  or 
vote,  howevei",  was  induced  or  ordered  by  the  County 
Judge  further  than  that  the  Election  Commissioners  knew 
his  views,  and  after  the  experts  had  reported  that  we  had 
selected  a  machine,  we  understood  from  conversation  with 
him  that  the  County  Judge  approved  of  our  action. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Will  you  please  read  that  last  answer? 
(Answer  read.) 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  In  passing  upon  the  subject  of  voting 
machines,  had  you  considered  the  reports  of  the  Illinois 
State  Voting  Committee  or  Commission,  which  were  pro- 
duced here  and  identified  by  members  of  that  commission 
the  other  day?" 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Those  reports  I  hold  in  my  hands,  and 
they  are  identified  as  'Owens'  Exhibits  1  and  2,'  marked 
'0-1'  and  '0-2'  for  identification,  portions  of  them  were 
read  and  I  offer  them  in  evidence  now. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    No  objection." 

In  passing  upon  the  voting  machine  question  witness 
had  also  considered  the  report  of  the  special  grand  jury 
appointed  by  Judge  Freeman,  of  which  Mr.  Loesch  was 
special  prosecutor,  dated  December  6,  1908;  a  certified 
copy  of  this  report  was  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Election 
Commissioners. 

It  was  one  of  the  earliest  things  that  brought  the  voting 
machine  project  to  our  attention. 


160  Grand  Jury  Report  of  November,  1908. 

706  Grand  jury  was  called  to  investigate  alleged  frauds 
particularly  in  the  primaries  of  1908  and,  incidentally,  to 
consider  the  subject  of  elections  generally  in  Cook 
County. 

708  The  grand  jury  reports  were  then  read  in  evidence : 
"To  the 

"Hon.  Henky  V.  Freeman, 
"Judge  of  the  Criminal  Court  of  Cook  County. 

"We,  the  undersigned,  empaneled  by  your  Honor  on 
November  4th,  1908,  as  a  Special  Grand  Jury  to  investi- 
gate misdemeanors  and  crimes  committed  in  connection 
with  the  primary  election  held  in  the  County  of  Cook  on 
the  8th  day  of  August,  1908,  respectfully  present  to  the 
Court  herewith  our  report  and  recommendations. 

The  Special  Grand  Jury  has  found  numerous  true  bills 
which  have  been  returned  into  Court  against  persons  who 
from  the  testimony  produced  before  the  Special  Grand 
Jury  appeared  to  be  guilty  of  misdemeanors  and  crimes 
denounced  by  the  laws  of  this  state. 

In  addition  to  the  testimony  directly  bearing  upon  the 
crimes  and  misdemeanors,  for  which  true  bills  were  found, 
the  Grand  Jury  heard  much  testimony  regarding  the  con- 
duct of  said  primary  election  and  also  general  elections, 
and  find  and  report  a  deplorable  condition  of  affairs  in 
certain  wards,  not  creditable  to  the  officials  who  are 
charged  by  law  with  the  conduct  of  elections  and  disgrace- 
ful to  the  City  of  Chicago,  which  has  permitted  such  elec- 
tion frauds  to  go  on  almost  unquestioned  until  this  time. 

We  find  and  so  report  that  no  confidence  can  be  placed 
in  the  reported  results  of  or  against  any  candidates  for 
a  party  nomination  at  said  election,  and  yet  that  election 
cost  the  taxpayers  of  Chicago  fully  $75,000.00. 

Fraudulent  registration  leading  to  fraudulent  voting; 

709  repeating  by  platoons  of  men  who  were  voted  first  for 
one  party,  then  for  other  party  candidates  at  the  same 
precincts;  voting  names  of  absentees,  non-residents,  in- 
sane and  dead  men,  accepting  false  affidavits  on  behalf 
of  disqualified  voters,  known  to  the  judges  to  be  so; 
numerous  and  flagrant  perjuries  by  party  voters  to  enable 
them  to  cast  illegal  votes;  taking  votes  from  non-regis- 
tered voters  without  affidavits  in  support  of  such  votes; 
fraudulent  writing  names  on  the  poll  books  and  putting 
ballots  in  the  boxes  to  correspond ;  keeping  upon  the  regis- 
ters names  of  men  who  had  removed  from  the  respective 


Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor.  161 

precincts  and  voting  tliem;  voting  the  same  name  more 
than  once  at  the  same  precinct;  disfranchising  voters  by 
permitting  their  names  to  be  voted  by  others;  marking 
ballots  after  the  boxes  were  opened;  handing  voters  bal- 
lots already  marked  for  certain  candidates ;  marking  bal- 
lots for  voters  against  their  wishes  and  so  putting  ballots 
into  the  ballot  box;  intimidating  voters  and  compelling 
them  to  vote  for  candidates  contrary  to  their  wishes; 
strangers  and  police  officers  being  permitted  to  handle 
the  ballots  after  the  boxes  were  opened,  so  as  to  permit 
of  fraudulent  marking  of  ballots  were  proven  before  us 
and  are  by  no  means  all  of  the  devices  which  we  have 
reason  to  believe  were  resorted  to  in  violation  of  every 
provision  of  the  election  law  intended  for  the  security  of 
710  the  voter,  the  sanctity  of  the  ballot  and  the  accuracy  of 
the  result  and  to  defeat  the  will  of  the  people  as  ex- 
pressed by  the  lawful  votes,  cast  at  said  election. 

From  the  facts  coming  to  our  knowledge  we  express 
serious  doubt  whether  there  has  been  any  honest  general 
or  city  election  in  Chicago  for  years  past. 

We  report  that  in  our  opinion  much  of  said  fraudulent 
voting  was  done  in  pursuance  of  general  schemes  of  cor- 
ruption, the  nature,  character  and  extent  of  which  we 
had  not  the  time  to  fully  develop. 

Almost  universally  we  found  the  persons  immediately 
responsible  for  many  of  said  election  frauds  to  be  men 
holding  elective  offices  and  men  holding  responsible  sub- 
ordinate positions  in  the  service  of  elected  or  appointed 
County  Officials  and  of  course  paid  by  the  taxpayers.  Out 
of  such  facts  grow  the  creation  and  continuance  of  offices 
serving  no  other  purpose  than  to  draw  salaries  from  the 
taxpayers  for  assumed  public  services,  but  in  fact  being 
used  to  pay  for  venal  services  rendered  to  party  bosses. 

We  do  not  wish  to  say  unqualifiedly  that  no  election 
frauds  were  committed  by  civil  service  employes ;  but  we 
do  report  thus  far  in  our  investigations  no  civil  service 

710  employes,  except  policemen,  have  been  found  to  be  en- 
gaged in  such  frauds;  and  the  attitude  of  the  police  is 
one  of  giving  negative  aid  to  such  frauds  by  seeing  and 
hearing  nothing  that  was  to  the  prejudice  of  their  pat- 
rons, however  well  it  may  have  been  seen  and  heard  by 
others  no  better  situated  than  the  policemen  at  the  poll. 

711  We  are  disappointed  in  having  received  no  aid  in  the  de- 


162  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

tection  of  such  frauds  from  the  police  officers  appearing 
before  us. 

The  inference  is  a  plain  one  to  us,  and  it  is  that  in  the 
interest  of  fair  elections  and  better  government  the  com- 
ing Legislature  should  enact  a  comprehensive  civil  service 
law  which  shall  apply  strictly  to  every  state,  park  and 
county  office  in  the  County  of  Cook,  whether  the  ap- 
pointees are  now  appointed  by  the  Governor  or  by  the 
County  Commissioners,  clerks  of  courts,  county  clerk, 
sheriff,  treasurer,  or  any  other  elective  or  appointed  of- 
ficer of  said  county. 

We  further  report  that  corrupt,  incompetent,  irrespon- 
sible, illiterate  and  characterless  men  in  numerous  cases 
have  been  appointed  and  have  acted  as  election  judges 
and  clerks  of  election  manifestly  in  the  interest  of  cor- 
rupt and  venal  persons  or  parties  and  for  selfish  ends  to 
the  scandal  of  the  honest  citizen  and  to  the  discredit  of 
the  superiors  responsible  for  such  appointments. 

711  In  respect  to  such  appointees,  we  cannot  hold  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  blameless.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  in  the  first  instance  under  the  elec- 
tion laws  to  nominate  and  appoint  honest  and  properly 
qualified  judges  and  clerks  in  the  manner  and  as  desig- 
nated by  the  election  law.  We  think  that  quite  generally 
such  judges  and  clerks  have  been  selected  and  named  by 
the  precinct  committeemen  of  the  leading  parties   and 

712  have  thus  become  the  active  or  willing  tools  of  the  pre- 
cinct committeemen  in  the  work  of  corrupting  the  ballot. 
Sufficient  care  has  not  been  exercised,  in  our  judgment, 
to  revise  the  selections  of  nominations  for  judges  and 
clerks  made  by  the  ward  and  precinct  committees  to  the 
election  commissioners. 

It  has  been  testified  to  before  us  and  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent it  must  be  admitted  to  be  true  that  there  are  sections 
of  the  City  in  which  the  Election  Commissioners  find  it 
almost  impossible  to  name  competent  and  honest  men  to 
act  as  judges  and  clerks  of  the  election.  Conceding  this 
to  be  so,  we  yet  find  that  such  incompetent  and  corrupt 
judges  and  clerks  have  not  been  confined  to  the  districts 
referred  to. 

But  if  such  vicious  sections  were  more  numerous  than 
they  are,  it  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  permitting  the  scan- 
dals to  go  on  unrestrained  to  the  degradation  of  our 


Grand  Jury  Makes  Recommendations.  163 

public  life  to  the  uncountable  cost  of  the  taxpayers  and 
to  the  nullifying  of  the  franchise  of  law-abiding  citizens. 

712  A  remedy  should  and  must  be  found  in  the  laws  to  pre- 
vent the  disorderly  and  vicious  elements  from  exercising 
the  pastime  of  stuffing  ballot  boxes  in  their  disreputable 
haunts. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  this  evil  may  in  part  be 

713  overcome  by  a  supervising  election  official  appointed  di- 
rectly by  the  Governor  and  free  from  local  influence  as 
is  the  case  in  New  York  City,  but  this  would  not  be  an 
adequate  remedy,  would  be  expensive  and  would  be 
hostile  to  home  rule  to  which  the  people  of  Chicago  are 
thoroughly  committed. 

We  do,  however,  recommend  the  following  amendments 
to  the  election  laws,  and  in  this  respect  concur  in  the  sug- 
gestions made  to  us  by  the  Election  Commissioners : 

First.  The  election  law  should  be  so  amended  as  to 
require  compulsory  services,  if  need  be,  from*  voters 
appointed  to  act  as  judges  and  clerks. 

There  is  good  and  better  reason  to  require  such  com- 
pulsory service  as  there  is  in  the  case  of  grand  and  petit 
jurors  and  the  service  is  less  onerous. 

Secondly.  That  when  the  emergency  exists  the  Election 
Commissioners  shall  be  authorized  to  select  qualified 
voters  at  large  to  be  sent  into  other  than  their  home  pre- 
cincts to  there  act  as  judges  and  clerks. 

Thirdly.  That  the  law  provide  for  general  Election 
Commissioners,  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  see  that  all 
provisions  of  the  election  laws  are  complied  with  by  the 
judges  and  clerks  of  the  election  and  by  voters ;  these  to 
be  competent  men  of  character  and  standing,  with  police 
authority,  and  to  report  upon  the  working  of  the  law 

714  and  to  be  qualified  to  act  as  prosecutors  in  cases  of  viola- 
tion of  the  law. 

Fourthly.  Some  method  of  identification  of  the  voter 
should  be  required  at  registration  and  at  the  poll,  such 
as  his  signature  or  thumb  impression  to  prevent  repeat- 
ing and  impersonation  by  other  voters. 

The  number  of  illiterate  voters  who  cannot  read  or 
write  the  English  or  any  other  language  makes  it  easy  to 
cast  fraudulent  votes  in  their  names  or  prevent  such 
voters  from  voting  according  to  their  intention.  The  law 
seeks  to  protect  them  in  their  right  by  requiring  one  judge 
of  each  party  to  see  to  the  marking  of  such  voter's  ballot, 


164  Statement  as  to  Voting  Machines. 

but  this  was  looked  upon  as  almost  a  dead  letter  at  the 
said  primary  election. 

Fifthly.  Every  candidate  for  any  office,  includino-  the 
precinct  committeeman,  should  be  denied  the  right  to  be 
present  in  the  polling  booth,  except  during  the  easting  of 
his  vote,  and  should  be  denied  the  right  to  act  as  chal- 
lenger. Nor  should  candidates  be  permitted  to  enter  poll- 
ing places  on  a  round  of  visits  or  for  any  other  purpose. 

The  most  active  agent  in  the  perpetration  of  frauds 
were  the  precinct  committeemen,  or  candidates  for  such 
places,  who  acted  as  challengers  and  intimidated  voters, 
coerced  judges  and  clerks  to  do  their  bidding  and  aided 
and  directed  fraudulent  and  illegal  voting. 

Sixthly.  Amend  the  general  election  law  so  as  to  re- 
quire a  revision  of  the  registration  prior  to  a  primary 
election,  so  that  any  legal  voter  might  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  register  and  vote  and  thus  cut  off  the  voting  by 
affidavit,  which  was  a  prolific  source  of  fraud  at  the  pri- 
mary election. 

Seventhly.  The  Election  Commissioners  should  bring 
before  them  all  the  election  judges  and  clerks  in  election 
precincts  where  complaints  are  made  of  inefficiency,  in- 
competency or  frauds,  or  where  they  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve without  complaint  that  bad  conditions  exist,  examine 
them  according  to  law  and  replace  many  of  the  present 
judges  and  clerks  with  qualified  men  of  good  reputation. 

As  every  general  election  costs  the  taxpayers  of  Chi- 
cago fully  $250,000.00,  we  should  have  at  least  fair  elec- 
tions and  accurate  counts  and  returns. 

With  the  best  intentions  on  the  part  of  the  judges  and 
clerks,  numerous  errors  are  likely  to  occur  where  many 
candidates  are  voted  for,  and  in  a  close  election  no  real 
confidence  can  be  placed  upon  the  stated  result  under 
existing  conditions. 
715  Therefore,  to  reduce  the  opportunity  for  errors,  pre- 
vent frauds,  lessen  the  cost,  secure  the  prompt  announce- 
ment of  the  result  of  an  election  and  prevent  the  holding 
back  of  announcement  of  results  in  one  ward  in  order  to 
defeat  some  candidate  who  had  a  lead  in  other  wards,  we 
recommend  that  satisfactory  voting  machines  should  be 
purchased  and  installed  at  each  precinct  at  the  earliest 
practical  moment. 

There  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of  so  doing  at  once,  but 
there  was  testimony  given  before  us  to  the  effect  that 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  165 

such  voting  machine  suitable  to  Illinois  elections  would 
soon  be  upon  the  market,  light  in  weight  and  at  a  very- 
reasonable  cost  compared  with  voting  machines  now  be- 
ing made. 

As  we  are  convinced  from  our  investigations  that  much 
of  the  misgovernment  of  Chicago  and  Cook  County  and 
the  waste  of  public  money  is  due  to  frauds  at  primary 
elections,  which  are  the  first  step  in  the  election  of  public 
officials,  we  recommend  and  earnestly  urge  the  continu- 
ance of  the  investigation  which  time  did  not  permit  us  to 
conclude  in  order  to  detect  and  vigorously  prosecute  and 
punish  those  guilty  of  the  crimes  denounced  by  the  elec- 
tion laws  and  thereby  prevent  a  recurrence  of  such  frauds, 

716  misdemeanors  and  crimes.  To  that  end  we  earnestly  urge 
upon  the  Board  of  County  Commissioners  the  making  of 
a  liberal  appropriation  for  the  Special  State's  Attorney 
to  effectively  carry  on  said  work. 

We  desire  to  express  our  obligations  to  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  and  to  the  chief  clerk  thereof 
for  the  prompt  and  efficient  aid  which  has  been  daily  ac- 
corded to  us  and  to  the  Special  State's  Attorney  in  the 
investigation  of  said  primary  election  frauds. 

We  consider  that  the  People  of  Cook  County,  in  whose 
name  and  by  whose  authority  we  have  conducted  our  de- 
liberations, have  been  outraged  by  the  machinations  of 
certain  office-holders  of  the  County  which  have  resulted 
in  the  constant  financial  embarrassment  of  Special  State 's 
Attorney  Loesch  and  his  aids.  We  denounce  the  men 
who  have  thrust  upon  the  County  the  shame  of  forcing 
Mr.  Loesch  to  perform  his  public  duty  without  the  com- 
pensation which  he  is  entitled  to,  and  which  thus  far,  he 
has  ably  and  conscientiously  earned,  and  we  denounce 
the  measures  by  which  these  men  have  achieved  this 
ignoble  end,  and  we  especially  condemn  the  recent  dis- 
graceful conduct  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Service, 
which  deprives  Mr.  Loesch  of  reimbursement  of  funds 
for  emergency  and  other  expenses  to  the  amount  of 
1511.14,  which,  with  generosity  and  a  high  sense  of  duty, 
he  advanced  from  his  private  purse. 

717  We  vote  our  unanimous  thanks  to  Mr.  Loesch  for  his 
courtesy  and  assistance  to  this  Grand  Jury  and  for  the 
thorough  manner  in  which  he  made  his  preliminary  in- 
quiry before  submitting  testimony  to  our  body.  We  com- 
mend the  whole-souled  and  single-hearted  devotion  to  his 


166  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

public  duty  of  this  able  special  officer  of  the  Ci'iminal 
Court,  and  his  heroism  in  battling  on  in  the  face  of  the 
almost  insurmountable  barriers  placed  in  his  way  by 
those  who  manifestly  either  must  fear  or  be  interested 
in  stopping  this  inquiry. 

We  further  commend  the  able,  honest  and  conscientious 
discharge  of  public  duty  of  all  of  his  assistants  and  in- 
vestigators;  also  Mr.  Ambrose  H.  Purdy,  Mr.  Walter  F. 
718  McEntire,  Mr.  Robert  M.  Buck,  Chief  Investigator,  and 
more  especially  the  untiring  efforts  of  Mr.  Frank  Jani- 
seski  in  the  impartial  presentation  of  evidence  to  our 
body. 

We  insist  that  the  honor  of  Cook  County  can  be  vin- 
dicated only  by  a  way  being  found  by  which  fully  to  re- 
imburse Mr.  Loesch  for  his  expenditures  and  to  com- 
pensate him  for  his  time  and  service. 
J.  S.  Richardson, 
Foreman. 

Sam'l  T.  Jones,  Sec.  Special  Grand  Jury. 

Norman  H.  Davis.  H.  A.  Smith. 

Frank  V.  Irish.  J.  W.  Smithson. 

W.  R.  Ashton.  Wm.  Gillman. 

Adolph  Leffett.  Patrick  E.  Murnane. 

718       Geo.  W.  Field.  Martin  B.  Rogers. 

J.  Mills.  Chas.  Guesten,  Jr. 

H.  F.  Ahlswede.  Chas.  F.  Stone. 

Henry  A.  Dedenwald.  John  J.  Bryant. 

Thomas  J.  Condon.  Daniel  S.  Stern. 

Florrin  William  Schmidt.  John  A.  Wachter. 

J.  Schmadic. 

Mr.  McEwEN.     Q.     Doctor,  you  stated  that  you  also 
720  examined  all  the  different  reports  of  experts  in  the  pre- 
vious examinations  of  these  voting  machines,  I  believe? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  will  show  you  a  series  of  documents  here  pur- 
porting to  be  such  reports  of  examinations.  First,  a  re- 
port of  November  15,  1907,  of  Professor  DePuy,  which 
I  will  ask  to  have  marked  Exhibit  O-IO;  also  document 
of  November  18,  1907,  George  Olson,  to  be  marked  0-11 ; 
also  document  of  November  15,  1907,  purporting  to  be 
a  report  of  Professor  Breckenridge  to  be  marked  0-12; 
relating  to  examinations  of  Winslow,  Columbia,  Dean, 
International,  Triumph  and  United  States  Standard  Ma- 
chines; and  ask  you  whether  those  are  part  of  the  re- 


Reports  of  Experts  Under  Old  Board.  167 

ports  that  you  examined.  A.  Yes,  sir,  those  are  the 
original  reports  filed  in  the  office,  which  I  have  found 
there,  and  read  a  good  many  times. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  might  say  to  the  Committee  that  I 
think  we  will  be  able  to  take  a  short  cut  on  these  and 
save  some  time. 

Q.  I  will  also  ask  you  to  look  at  documents  purport- 
ing to  be  reports  of  experts,  which  I  will  ask  to  have 
marked  Exhibits  0-13,  0-14,  and  0-15,  respectively,  re- 
lating to  examinations  in  March,  1908. 

Mr.  Deneen.     By  whom? 

Mr.  McEwEsr.  0-13  purporting  to  be  a  report  of  an 
examination  by  C.  E.  DePuy;  0-14  purporting  to  be  a 
report  of  an  examination  by  George  0.  Olson;  0-15  pur- 
porting to  be  a  report  of  an  examination  by  O.  A.  Leut- 
721  weiler,  and  ask  you  the  same  question  as  to  whether 
those  were  on  file  and  examined  by  you  prior  to  pass- 
ing on  the  subject  of  the  voting  machines. 

A.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  likewise  show  you  what  purports  to 
be  reports  of  experts  of  an  examination  made  in  Octo- 
ber, 1909,  to  be  marked  Exhibits  0-16,  0-17,  and  0-18. 

Mr.  Deneen.     By  whom? 

Mr.  McEwEN.  The  first  being  one  by  DePuy,  0-16; 
the  second  by  Olson,  0-17;  the  third  by  Leutweiler,  0-18, 
and  ask  you  the  same  question  as  to  whether  those  doc- 
uments were  on  file  and  read  by  you  prior  to  the  vot- 
ing machine  proceedings  of  the  Election  Commissioners. 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McP^wEN.  I  will  show  vou  a  series  of  documents, 
to  be  numbered  0-19,  O-20,  0-21,  0-22  and  0-23;  the 
first,  0-19  being  an  examination  by  DePuy,  August  3, 
1910,  of  a  Caulkins  machine;  the  second,  O-20,  an  exam- 
ination by  DePuy  of  a  Triumph  machine,  July  20,  1910; 
0-21  being  an  examination  by  DePuy  of  an  Empire  ma- 
chine of  July  1,  1910;  0-22,  being  an  examination  by 
Olson,  July  14,  1910,  of  an  Empire  machine,  0-23  being 
a  report  on  several  machines,  July  14,  1910, — rather,  a 
copy  of  a  report  by  Olson  and  DePuy.  That  may  be  a 
duplication  of  those  other  reports,  I  can't  tell.  And  will 
ask  you  the  same  question,  as  to  whether  they  were  on 
file  and  examined  by  you  prior  to  the  vote  machine  pro- 
ceedings. 


168  The  Reports  Considered  by  Witness.   . 

722  A.  Yes,  sir.  I  recognize  some  of  these  as  the  orig- 
inals— 

Q.  "While  the  last  one  there  is  a  copy?  A.  — and 
the  other  is  an  office  copy  made  of  the  entire  lot  of  them. 
I  found  that  in  the  office,  however,  on  file  with  the  rest 
of  them. 

Q,    And  were  considered  by  you?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  ought  to  have  stated, — I  believe  I 
read  the  names  of  the  group  that  was  examined  in  1907 ; 
the  group  examined  in  1908  were  the  Winslow,  Colum- 
bia, United  States  Standard,  American  Vote  Register, 
the  Willix  and  the  Triumph.  The  ones  in  July  and  Au- 
gust, 1910,  were  the  Caulkins,  Empire  and  Triumph.  Mr. 
Cannon  mistakenly  stated  the  Empire  was  the  only  one 
examined  in  that  year. 

Q.  You  heard  the  reports  of  the  three  experts  of 
1911  read?  A.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  have  read  them  many 
times. 

Q.  If  there  is  no  objection,  I  will  ask  you  to  read  the 
synopsis  that  you  have  prepared  of  the  more  prominent 
features  that  appealed  to  you  in  these  voting  machine 
proceedings.  I  ask  this  in  the  interest  of  saving  time, 
rather  than  take  the  documents  and  go  through  them  at 
length. 

Mr.  Deneen.     Will  Ave  get  the  copy  of  that  letter! 

Mr.  McEwEN.     Yes,  it  can  go  right  in  the  record. 

The  Witness  (reading) :  "The  reports  of  examina- 
tions made  by  experts  under  the  present  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  were  two  in  number,  viz:  on  June 
20th  and  July  27th,  1911." 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  By  the  experts  appointed  by  Judge 
Owens,  or,  selected  by  Judge  Owens? 

A.  Yes,  I  am  calling  the  Committee's  attention  to 
that  old  error.  If  you  will  recall  there  was  a  pencil  no- 
tation on  a  dateless  report,  which  said  "July  27th";  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  it  w^as  rendered  earlier  than  that  it  w^as 
724  on  July  21st  at  least,  before  the  signing  of  the  contract. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  object  to  that. 
That  is  not  responsive  to  the  question,  and  I  think  he 
ought  to  correct  it  in  interrogative  form,  if  he  means. to 
correct  that  statement.  Let  us  make  it  responsive  and 
then  Judge  McEwen  can  ask  you  about  that. 

The  Witness  (reading):  "The  reason  for  two  exam- 
inations ' ' — 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  169 

Mr.  Deneen.  Pardon  me.  Is  that  matter  stricken  out 
about  the  21st,  and  then  he  can  ask  about  it  later? 

The  Chairman.  Let  that  be  stricken  out.  Let  the  an- 
swer be  responsive. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  Doctor,  I  will  ask  you  at  that  point 
whether  the  date  of  July  27,  1911,  refers  to  the  docu- 
ment which  was  produced  here,  which  was  dateless,  but 
bears  a  lead  pencil  memorandum,  July  27,  1911,  and 
purporting  to  be  a  supplemental  report  of  the  previous 
report;  is  that  the  document  referred  to? 

A.     That  is  the  document. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  All  right,  that  is  enough.  Go  ahead 
with  the  reading. 

The  Witness  (reading) :  "The  reason  for  two  exam- 
inations was  that  the  Empire  Machine  Company  had  on 
hand  for  the  first  examination  only  a  50-key  machine, 
while  the  specifications  required  a  70-key  machine. 
They  did  not  wish  to  be  at  the  expense  of  building  a 
70-key  machine  unless  the  Board  would  be  ready  to  buy. 
725  The  specifications  allowed  the  exhibition  of  a  smaller 
machine,  but  provided  that  the  bidder  whose  type  of  ma- 
chine was  favored  should,  before  contract  was  made, 
produce  a  machine  of  9  columns  and  70  keys  which  should 
be  passed  upon  by  the  experts. 

This  was  done.  The  50-key  machine  was  examined  in 
June  and  the  70-key  machine  in  July,  1911. 

The  experts  of  the  present  Board  (Abbott,  Chamber- 
lain and  Wooley)  examined  all  the  machines  presented 
in  competition  in  June,  1911.  The  machines  were  the 
Empire,  The  Triumph,  The  International  and  the  Wins- 
low.  In  their  rating,  p.  12,  of  their  joint  report,  they 
estimated  the  merits  of  the  several  machines  in  the  fol- 
lowing order: 

First,  The  Empire. 

Second,  The  Triumph. 

Third,  The  International. 

Fourth,  The  Winslow. 

They  say,  on  p.  12,  "Your  commission  believes  that 
the  voting  machine  art  has  been  developed  to  a  point 
where  machines  may  be  installed  in  Chicago  with  safety 
and  economy  and  that  such  installation  shall  be  the 
means  of  greatly  minimizing  the  possibility  of  fraud  at 
the  polls." 

They  say,  on  p.  4,  'Split  voting  with  the  Empire  must 


170  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 

be  done  by  pulling  down  individually  the  keys  which 
represent  the  candidates  to  be  voted  for  and  this  on  a 
70-key  board  will  scarcely  be  done  within  the  one  min- 
ute's time  permitted  to  each  voter  in  the  voting  booth.' 

But  they  add,  on  p.  9,  'With  the  latter  machine  (the 
Empire)  which  has  no  party  lever,  split  voting  requires 
726  a  few  seconds  more  time  than  is  necessary  to  vote  a 
split  ticket  on  a  machine  equipped  with  a  party  lever. 
Your  committee  commission  does  not  set  this  up  as  an 
important  point,  but  think  it  should  be  brought  to  your 
attention. ' 

And  they  say  of  the  Empire,  on  p.  4,  'The  machine 
fulfills  the  requirements  of  the  State  law,  is  very  well 
constructed  of  suitable  and  durable  materials  and  is  in 
convenient  form  for  transportation.' 

Observe,  too,  that  the  State  Voting  Machine  Commis- 
sioners April  26,  1911,  certified  of  the  Empire,  "It  is 
so  constructed  that  each  elector  can  understandingly 
and  within  the  period  of  one  minute  cast  his  vote  for  all 
candidates  of  his  choice."    See  certificate. 

In  their  last  report  on  the  Empire,  July,  1911,  the  ex- 
perts recommended  that  change  in  the  machine  be  made 
to  have  larger  slots  for  writing  in  votes.  This  was  pro- 
vided for  in  the  contract  and  was  done;  Chamberlain, 
expert,  who  inspected  the  first  invoice  of  machines,  Feb. 
1st,  1912,  certified  that  the  improvements  had  been 
made. 


A  digest  of  expert  reports  made  to  the  former  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  gives  the  following  points: 

A  report  was  made  in  November,  1907.  There  Avere 
>  six  machines  examined,  viz:  The  Winslow,  Columbia, 
Dean,  International,  Triumph  and  U.  S.  Standard. 

Three  of  the  above  machines  now  belong  to  the  Em- 
pire Company,  The  Dean,  The  Columbia  and  U.  S.  Stand- 
727  ard;  and  the  Empire  owned  them  at  the  time  of  the  Chi- 
cago Contract.  The  experts  who  made  this  1907  exam- 
ination were  Olson,  DePuy  and  Breckenridge. 

A  second  examination  was  made  in  March,  1908.  The 
experts  were  Olson,  DePuy  and  Leutweiler;  and  the  ma- 
chines examined  were  the  Winslow,  Columbia,  U.  S. 
Standard,  American,  AVillix  and  Triumph,  Two  of  these, 
■Columbia  and  U.  S.  Standard,  belong  to  the  Empire 
Company. 


Digest  of  Reports  to  Former  Board.  171 

A  third  examination  was  made  in  October,  1909.  The 
experts  were  Olsen,  Leutweiler  and  DePuy;  and  the  ma- 
chines examined  were  the  Empire,  Triumph,  Willix  and 
Winslow. 

A  fourth  examination  was  made  in  July,  1910,  by  Ol- 
son and  DePuy,  and  the  machines  examined  were  the 
Caulkins,  Empire  and  Triumph. 

Note  that  in  all  these  examinations  some  one  of  the 
machines  owned  by  the  Empire  Company  were  always 
rated  highest.     Thus: 

In  1907  Olson  reported  of  the  U.  S.  Standard,  'I  con- 
sider it  the  best  machine  on  the  floor.'  DePuy  did  not 
make  comparison;  and  Breckenridge  gave  the  U.  S. 
Standard  first  place,  saying,  'The  machine  which  best 
fulfills  the  requirements  of  a  voting  machine  for  the  City 
of  Chicago  from  the  standpoint  of  good  mechanical  de- 
sign, good  construction,  sound  mechanical  principles, 
good  materials,  accuracy  and  simplicity  of  operation  and 
728  recording  is  the  United  States  Standard  Voting  Ma- 
chine. Second  in  rank  and  not  far  behind  the  first  choice 
I  should  place  the  Columbia  Voting  Machine.' 

In  1908  all  three  of  the  experts  gave  the  U.  S.  Standard 
and  the  Columbia  the  preference.  In  this  examination 
Mr.  Olson  seems  to  have  reached  a  point  where  he  re- 
garded machines  as  purchasable.  He  said:  "In  answer- 
ing question  No.  18,  'From  your  examination  and  study 
of  the  several  voting  machines  are  they  in  your  opinion 
sufficiently  perfected  so  that  you  would  advise  the  Board 
to  purchase  any  one  of  them  at  this  time?'  My  answer 
is  yes — from  a  mechanical  standpoint,  only."  In  his  re- 
port on  both  the  U.  S.  Standard  and  the  Columbia,  he 
said,  "This  machine  is  very  practical  in  every  way  as 
certain  conditions  complained  of  in  my  last  report  have 
been  successfully  overcome." 

In  1909  Leutweiler  was  the  only  expert  who  graded  the 
machines :  He  gave  first  place  to  the  Empire.  The  other 
two  experts  constructively  did  the  same. 

In  1910  DePuy,  reporting  on  the  Empire  machine  said: 
"The  machine  presented,  I  believe,  will  receive  and  re- 
cord votes  in  an  election  accurately  and  quickly  after  the 
machine  is  adjusted  and  the  voters  have  received  proper 
instruction  and  will  thus  simplify  the  work  of  judges  and 
clerks  in  securing  correct  returns.  To  offset  these  ad- 
vantages, however,  the  machine  is  large,  heavy  and  diffi- 


172  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

cult  to  move  and  store."    P.  3.    Depuy  also  said  in  this 

729  report:  "The  material,  workmanship  and  general  de- 
sign are  of  the  same  excellent  character  as  shown  on  the 
machine  previously  exhibited;  and  I  believe  that  this 
machine  would  be  durable  and  reliable  in  action."  P. 
1. 

At  this  same  examination  (July,  1910),  Olson,  the 
other  expert  (there  were  but  two)  said  of  the  Empire: 
"This  machine  seems  to  have  been  designed  and  built 
with  the  sole  idea  of  complying  with  the  Illinois  law  and 
they  have  no  doubt  succeeded  but  they  have  lost  sight  of 
the  many  problems  confronting  a  large  city,  such  as 
transportation,  storage  and  repairs.  The  machine  is  en- 
tirely too  heavy  and  composed  of  too  many  parts  and  I 
consider  it  unwise  to  purchase  any  machine  of  this  type 
at  the  present  time,  as  I  am  convinced  we  can  look  for 
great  improvements  in  the  near  future.  The  material 
used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine  could  not  in  my 
opinion  be  improved  on.  The  workmanship  is  first 
class,"  etc. 

Apparently,  from  DePuy's  examination  of  1910,  the 
only  objections  he  made  were: 

a.  Weight. 

b.  Possibility  of  custodian  adjusting  machine  before 
election  so  as  to  defraud. 

Olson's  objections  at  the  'same  examination  were: 

a.  Weight. 

b.  Voter  who  votes  straight  party  vote  wishes  to  see 
all  pointers  come  down  instead  of  one. 

730  c.  The  Company's  requirement  that  machine  should 
"set  on  level  floor" — which  he  thought  indicated  defec- 
tive legs. 

d.     Not  large  enough  for  primary  election. 
The  answers  to  those  objections  are  as  follows: 
Weight.    Indianapolis  has  for  eleven  years  used  suc- 
cessfully a  heavier  machine.    Theirs  weighs  1,400  pounds. 
Ours  950  pounds ;  and  the  Empire  has  been  used  in  sev- 
eral elections  in  Chicago  without  difficulty. 

Straight  vote.  Turning  down  one  pointer  gives  the 
voter  as  much  information  as  turning  down  70  pointers. 
In  either  case  the  voter  cannot  see  the  interior  of  the 
machine  and  know  what  has  been  recorded.  The  one 
pointer  turned  down  is  analogous  to  the  one  cross  at  the 
head  of  a  ticket. 


Testimony  of  Hotvard  S.  Taylor.  173 

Possibility  of  custodian  manipulating  counters  before 
election. 

It  could  not  be  done.  One  set  of  employes  before  elec- 
tion sets  the  counters  of  the  machine.  Another  set  of 
employes  inspects  and  reports  to  the  custodian.  Both 
reports  are  in  writing  giving  status  of  machine  and 
counters  and  both  reports  must  agree.  Further,  the 
judges  and  clerks  of  election  must  inspect  the  counters 
on  election  morning  and  see  that  all  counters  are  set  at 
zero. 

Not  large  enough  for  primaries.  Mere  speculation; 
but  if  at  any  primary  one  machine  be  too  small  two 
would  be  used  and  paper  ballots  could  be  furnished  for 
the  time  in  precincts  where  machines  are  not  supplied." 

The  Chairman.  Doctor,  that  is  prepared  by  your- 
self? 

A.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Jayne.    On  what  date? 

A.  This  was  comparatively  recent,  but  it  was  a  com- 
pilation I  made  from  an  old  digest,  in  fact,  four  or  five 
of  them. 
732  Mr.  Deneen  moves  to  strike  the  memorandum  from 
the  record  as  he  has  understood  it  was  prepared  before 
this  investigation  was  called. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  It  is  made  simply  to  obviate  the  neces- 
sity of  making  these  reports. 

"The  Witness.  The  matter  was  prepared  before  this 
investigation  begun,  two  or  three  weeks  before. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    It  is  not  offered  on  the  theory  that  it 
is  evidence  but  simply  as  a  time  saver." 
736      Mr.  Deneen  renews  objection. 

Witness  explains  that  the  memorandum  was  part  of 
the  preparation  he  made  for  the  little  book  or  pamphlet 
entitled  "The  Truth  About  the  Voting  Machine  Deal." 

Mr.  Deneen 's  objection  is  sustained  and  memorandum 
stricken  out. 
739      Mr.  McEwen  here  offered  in  evidence  documents  which 
had  been  identified  as  Exhibits  10  to  23,  inclusive : — 


174  Report  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

Clarence  E.  DePuy. 

742  Mechanical  Engineering 

and  Shopwork. 

Lewis  Institute. 

Chicago. 

Points  Noted  Concerning  Construction  and  Operating  of 

Voting  Machines. 

Columbia. 

Voting  action  is  produced  by  cams  and  links  and  is 

positive. 

Parts  are  few,  well  designed,  well  made  and  appar- 
ently are  durable. 

Springs  are  not  used  at  all. 

Steel  stems  are  too  thin  to  push  the  wedges  down  pos- 
itively. 

Stems  for  the  question  keys  are  too  short;  sometimes 
the  lower  end  catches  on  top  of  the  ad.joining  wedges, 
causing  them  to  buckle. 

Bars  between  restricting  wedges  are  too  short  to  allow 
them  to  swing  over  far  enough  to  vote  easily  a  group  of 
10  or  more  if  taken  in  adjoining  end  columns. 

Counters  should  be  held  in  cases  like  the  one  used  for 
the  straight  ticket,  and  like  those  also  should  have  a 
mark  on  the  first  disc  to  set  zero. 

Making  the  zeros  a  different  color  is  convenient. 
Cumulative  vote  attachment  is  very  simple  and  easily 
set  anywhere  and  makes  the  number  of  votes    nearly 
748  positive.    There  must  be  3  votes  for  1  candidate. 
1-1/2  votes  for  2  candidates. 
1  vote  for  one,  two  or  three  candidates. 
It  is  not  possible  to  set  for  2-1/2  votes,  but  a  man  does 

743  not  necessarily  vote  for  all  three  if  he  uses  the  single 
candidate  group. 

U.  S.  Standabd. 

Voting  action  is  produced  in  the  main  by  cams,  al- 
though there  are  several  springs  used,  and  in  some  places 
they  control  important  motions. 

Construction  is  good,  but  there  are  many  parts,  and 
some  are  not  readily  accessible. 

Restricting  wedges  stick  in  some  cases,  causing  keys 
already  set  to  turn  back  while  setting  others. 

Cumulative  vote  attachment  can  be  adjusted  on  ma- 


BePuy  Report — Continued.  175 

chines  between  columns  6  and  26  Tjut  cannot  be  moved 
the  entire  length. 

The  device  is  somewhat  complicated  and  needs  care 
and  skill  to  adjust.  It  does  not  make  number  of  votes 
positive,  for  it  may  be  set  for  2-1/2  votes. 

Abbott  ob  Winslow. 

Voting  action  is  produced  by  levers  and  gears  and  is 
positive,  no  springs  are  used. 

The  general  design  and    construction  are  not  good, 
and  some  essential  parts  are  not  very  durable. 
744      Position  of  keys  are  not  positive;  after  one  is  set  it 
may  be  moved  again  in  setting  others,  especially  in  group 
voting. 

Grouping  device  is  controlled  by  a  chain  giving  much 
friction,  which  makes  the  action  unreliable.  With  a  cer- 
tain grouping  it  is  possible  to  vote  19  vertical  columns 
and  23  in  horizontal  rows.  After  a  mixed  group  has 
been  voted,  it  is  very  difficult  to  vote  a  straight  ticket, 
for  the  lever  moves  very  hard,  caused  by  the  necessary 
readjustment  of  the  grouping  mechanism. 

In  arranging  machine  for  voting  a  given  ticket  it  is 
difficult  to  connect  or  disconnect  keys  and  party  levers, 
because  opening  in  front  is  too  small. 

Counter  wheels  have  duplicate  sets  of  numbers,  the 
reason  is  not  apparent.  One  set  of  large  figures  would 
seem  to  be  more  desirable. 

Triumph. 

Voting  action  is  produced  by  gears  and  eccentrics  and 
seems  to  be  positive,  but  connection  to  counters  is  not 
substantial  and  may  become  disarranged. 

Setting  counters  to  zero  is  inconvenient. 

Grouping  is  governed  by  a  chain  which  gives  much 
friction  under  certain  conditions. 

Bestricting  action  is  produced  by  the  same  chain  and 
is  not  always  reliable. 
746       Group  voting  is  satisfactory,  but  the  cumulative  vot- 
ing arrangement  does  not  restrict  it  to  the  exact  num- 
bers. 

The  means  of  recording  the  vote  and  setting  the  count- 
ers is  cumbersome. 

(Signed)     C.  E.  DePuy. 


176  Report  of  G.  0.  Olson. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    I  next  offer  and  read  into  the  record 
747  the  report  of  Geo.  0.  Olson,  dated  November  18th : 

Exhibit  "0-11." 

November  18,  1907. 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 
City  of  Chicago, 

Chicago,  Illinois. 
Gentlemen  : — 

At  your  request  I  have  made  an  examination  of  the  six 
voting  machines  installed  in  your  offices  and  beg  to  sub- 
mit the  following  reports,  which  I  enclose  in  separate 
envelopes.  I  would  recommend  that  the  box  for  the  ma- 
chine selected  be  made  as  near  dust-proof  as  possible. 
Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson." 


Nov.  18,  1907. 


TJ.  S.  S'tandaed. 


The  material  used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine 

748  is  practically  as  specified  in  their  bid. 

But  the  device  for  cutting  out  candidates  is  too  weak 
in  construction  and  very  liable  to  be  broken  when  making 
the  adjustment.  This  defect  is  not  at  all  serious  as  in 
making  up  the  machines  this  part  can  be  made  a  little 
heavier. 

Grouping  for  10  County  Commissioners  or  14  Circuit 
Court  Judges  is  readily  accomplished  on  any  part  of  the 
machine  and  very  easily  handled. 

The  legislative  vote  can  be  applied  to  any  part  of  the 

749  machine  providing  the  extension  is  made  on  all  the  vot- 
ing levers.  This  attachment  is  easily  applied  but  the 
manufacturer  should  provide  some  handy  tool  for  han- 
dling the  interlocking  straps  and 'make  it  easier  to  han- 
dle. 

It  is  set  to  vote  one,  1-1/2  or  three  votes  independently 
and  is  a  very  practical  device.  It  will  also  allow  of  2-1/2 
votes  being  registered  on  the  voting  keys  whicli  is  a  de- 
fect that  I  understand  the  manufacturers  claim  to  be 
able  to  remedy. 

This  machine  is  secure  against  manipulation  having 
a  custodian's  key  provided  to  unlock  the  glass  doors,  the 


Olson  Report — Continued.  177 

record  can  be  taken  off  very  easily  without  opening  these 
doors  at  the  Polling  Place. 

I  -wish  to  call  your  special  attention  to  the  raising  and 
lowering  device  which  is  a  very  great  improvement  and 
should  ibe  given  the  greatest  consideration. 

Also  to  the  automatic  closing  of  the  curtains  which  is 
in  my  opinion  very  essential. 

The  counters  are  returned  to  zero  very  easily.  Re- 
stricted voters  device  is  very  simple  and  easily  handled. 
Ballot  lock  is  secure  and  easy  to  handle.  The  face  of  this 
machine  is  very  plain  and  very  easy  to  read  and  does 
not  in  my  opinion  confuse  the  voter. 

AVorkmanship  and  mechanical  construction  in  this  ma- 
chine is  very  good  and  I  consider  it  the  best  machine  on 
the  floor. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson." 

''Nov.  18,  1907. 
Abbott. 

The  material  used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine 
is  practically  as  specified  in  their  bid.  But  the  steel  that 
enters  into  the  construction  of  the  doors  and  the  frame 
that  holds  the  ballots  is  entirely  too  light  and  is  very 
liable  to  be  bent  out  of  shape  in  handling.  The  chain 
Avhich  controls  the  voting  mechanism  inside  of  the  ma- 
chine is  very  liable  to  cast  2-1/2  or  3-1/2  vote  but  only 
three  will  be  counted. 

The  voting  for  10  County  Commissioners  in  two  col- 

750  umns  across  the  board  or  for  candidates  in  5  different 
parties  only  9  votes  can  be  counted. 

For  lack  of  time  I  did  not  try  to  group  this  machine 
for  14  Circuit  Court  Judges. 

The  restricted  voters'  device  is  very  easily  handled. 

The  method  of  returning  counters  to  zero  by  unloosen- 
ing a  set  screw  and  using  a  screw  driver  is  very  slow. 

On  this  machine  it  is  necessary  to  use  two  levers  to 
cast  a  straight  party  vote  which  would  be  very  confus- 
ing to  the  voter. 

The  face  of  the  machine  is  too  congested  and  hard  to 
read. 

The  workmanship  is  fair  but  for  the  defects  which 
have  been  enumerated. 

751  .  (Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olsok." 


178  Olson  Report — Continued. 

"Nov.  18,  1907. 
Intebnattoxal. 

The  material  used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine 
is  practically  as  specified  in  their  bid. 

This  machine  is  constructed  of  many  small  parts  and 
is  very  liable  to  get  out  of  order  for  that  reason. 

I  am  satisfied  that  if  it  was  stored  for  six  months  that 
you  could  not  move  the  party  lever  as  there  would  be  a 
great  liability  that  the  slides  would  gum  up  and  stick. 
A  great  many  of  the  keys  are  very  hard  to  move  at  the 
present  time. 

Voting  for  County  Commissioners  in  two  columns  up 
the  board  or  voting  for  two  commissioners  in  five  differ- 
ent parties  you  can  only  cast  9  votes.  Did  not  try  group- 
ing for  14  Circuit  Court  Judges  as  the  manufacturers  did 
not  supply  a  grouping  piece  for  that  number.  In  group- 
ing it  is  necessary  to  have  a  separate -piece  for  each  num- 
ber you  wish  to  group  and  the  pieces  would  not  be  part 
of  the  machine,  only  an  attachment. 

Voting  for  Legislators  is  done  by  casting  two  1-1/2 
votes,  one  for  each  or  3  for  one  candidate  must  be  writ- 
ten on  paper  provided  in  small  tubes  and  dropped  into 
the  machine.  This  is  very  impractical  and  should  con- 
demn any  machine. 
752  The  voting  lever  can  be  moved  without  the  assistance 
of  the  judges. 

The  restricted  voters  device  is  simple  and  easily  oper- 
ated. 

The  counters  are  positively  locked  against  manipula- 
tion in  fact  so  much  that  it  takes  three  men  to  get  at 
them  as  it  takes  that  number  to  turn  the  table  over.  There 
is  something  radically  wrong  with  the  metal  in  the 
counters  as  on  opening  the  machine  I  found  any  num- 
;  ber  of  teeth  broken  off,  which  I  enclose  in  an  envelope 
for  your  inspection. 

Ballot  holding  is  very  crude  as  you  must  take  out 
small  screws  from  the  strips  that  hold  them. 

"Workmanship  fair. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson." 


Olson  Report — Continued.  179 

"Nov.  18,  1907. 
Columbia. 

The  material  used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine 
is  practically  as  specified  in  their  bid.  But  the  steel  tape 
which  draws  the  wedges  into  the  limited  space  is  too 
light,  and  buckles  when  you  wish  to  release  a  key. 

In  voting  for  10  County  Commissioners  in  two  col- 
iimns  down  the  board  or  voting  for  two  commissioners 
in  five  different  parties,  the  keys  cannot  be  released  in- 
dependently. The  cause  of  this  is  the  buckling  of  this 
steel  tape.  The  same  thing  occurs  when  you  group  ma- 
chine for  14  Circuit  Court  Judges  only  in  this  case  you 
can  vote  for  15  judges. 

The  grouping  device  is  practical  and  easily  adjusted 
to  all  positions  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  manu- 
facturers can  remedy  these  defects. 

The  straight  party  vote  is  controlled  by  one  pointer 
and  the  voter  cannot  tell  from  the  board  what  candidate 
he  has  voted  for.  This  is  very  simply  constructed  from 
the  manufacturers'  point  of  view,  but  I  think  very  unsat- 

753  isfactory  for  the  voter. 

The  counters  are  not  positively  locked  as  when  the 
back  doors  are  open  it  is  only  necessary  to  move  a  small 
catch  and  lift  a  rod  and  the  counters  can  be  removed 
from  the  machine.  This  can  be  remedied  by  having  a 
custodian's  lock.  If  the  manufacturers  have  provided 
for  this  I  failed  to  discover  it. 

Voting  for  Legislators  is  provided  for  in  three  col- 
umns and  the  device  is  shown  on  a  smaller  model  which 
can  be  easily  applied  to  the  sample  machine.    The  device 

754  is  very  practical  and  is  positive  in  its  action. 

Total  vote  counter  can  be  easily  manipulated  when 
doors  are  open,  but  this  can  be  remedied  by  taking  ofif  a 
small  knob.  The  restricted  voters  device  is  very  simple 
and  very  easily  operated. 

Curtains  have  not  been  provided  and  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  remove  them  from  the  machine  and^ quite  difficult 
to  put  them  back  again.  This  is  not  a  good  method  as 
the  bars  or  channels  which  hold  the  counters  are  liable 
to  sret  damaged. 

The  workmanship  is  first  class.  I  would  recommend 
that  the  cam  roller  and  cam  bars  be  made  about  1/4" 
thicker  at  the  working  parts  and  be  case  hardened. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson." 


180  Olson  Report — Continued. 

"November  18,  1907. 
Triumph. 

Material  used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine  is 
practically  as  specified  in  their  bid. 

This  machine  is  weak  in  construction  in  the  grouping 
mechanism  the  slack  of  the  chain  cannot  be  taken  up 
readily  and  in  some  combinations  of  votes  the  rack  and 
pinion  device  allows  of  too  much  lost  motion  which 
makes  it  difficult  of  adjustment.  Grouping  is  easily  ac- 
complished on  any  part  of  the  machine.  Voting  for  10 
755  County  Commissioners  the  10th  vote  works  very  hard 
and  in  some  combinations  you  can  vote  12  votes  or  in  a 
group  of  14  Circuit  Court  judges  16  votes  can  be  counted. 

Voting  for  legislators  is  done  by  casting  two  1^  votes 
with  the  keys,  but  if  you  wish  to  vote  1  for  each  or  3  for 
one  candidate  you  must  write  the  name  on  the  paper  for 
independent  candidates.  This  is  very  impractical  and 
should  condemn  any  machine. 

The  counters  are  not  positively  locked  as  when  the 
back  doors  are  open  it  is  only  necessary  to  move  the  vot- 
ing lever  to  a  middle  position  to  get  out  the  counters.  A 
custodian  key  should  be  provided. 

755  The  device  for  locking  ballots  is  very  crude.  Workman- 
ship only  fair. 

(Signed)    Geo.  0.  Olson. 

"Nov.  18,  1907. 
Dean. 

The  material  used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine 
is  practically  as  specified  in  their  bid. 

The  party  levers  do  not  draw  the  voting  studs  down 
far  enough  to  lock  the  counters,  and  it  is  necessary  to 
push  them  down  independently  if  you  wish  to  count  your 
vote,  as  in  this  operation  each  counter  is  locked. 

Grouping  device  is  very  difficult  to  handle  and  very  in- 
tricate, and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  an  expert  would  be 

756  necessary  to  handle  this  part  of  the  machine.  I  did  not 
try  to  group  for  14  Circuit  Court  Judges  as  the  smallest 
grouping  block  was  No.  11. 

The  Legislative  voting  device  is  a  special  attachment, 
but  can  be  applied  to  any  part  of  the  machine. 

In  voting  for  Legislators  the  voter  must  cast  a  full  com- 


Olson  Report — Continued.  181 

plement  of  votes  before  he  can  register.    He  cannot  vote 
independently  at  all. 

The  face  of  this  machine  is  too  congested  and  very 
hard  to  read.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  a  machine  to  he 
practical  must  be  read  by  looking  straight  at  the  board 
while  standing  up. 

The  counters  are  positively  locked  (or  unlocked  in  this 
case)  against  manipulation.  Eestricted  voters'  device 
was  out  of  order  and  would  not  work.  The  device  for 
locking  ballots  is  practical. 

Returning  counters  to  zero  is  very  practical  and  easily 
handled. 

The  mechanical  construction  lacks  simplicity. 

(Signed)    George  0.  Olson. 

November  18,  1907. 

757  GrEORGE  0.  Olson's  Report  on  Voting  Machines. 

Machines  examined  were: 
Winslow  (Abbott). 
Columbia. 
Dean. 

International. 
Triumph. 

United  States  Standard. 
759      Mr.  McEwEN.     The  next  document  in  the  report  of 
Prof.  Breckenridge,  dated  November  15,  1907,  is  as. fol- 
lows: 

"Exhibit  0-12." 

Report  of  the  Examination 

of 

Six  Voting  Machines 

for 

The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 

of  the 

City  of  Chicago,  Illinois. 

Approved. 

L.  P.  Breckenridge, 
Professor  of  Mechnnical  Engineering, 
University  of  Illinois. 
Urbana,  Illinois, 

November  15,  1907. 


182  Report  of  L.  P.  Breckenridge. 

Urbana,  Illinois, 
November  15, 1907. 
The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners , 

of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois. 
Genttj5Men  : 

I  take  pleasure  in  handing  you  herewith  enclosed  my 
report  on  the  examination  of  six  voting  machines  for  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
I  trust  that  this  report  will  cover  the  ground  desired. 

If  I  can  be  of  further  assistance  to  you  in  this  matter, 
command  me. 

Yours  respectfully, 

(Signed)    L.  P.  Breckestridgbi. 
Professor  of  Mechanical  Engineering, 
University  of  Illinois. 

"Urbana,  Illinois, 
November  15,  1907. 
The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 

of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois. 
Gentlemen  : 

In  accordance  with  your  request,  I  have  examined  the 
six  voting  machines  named  elsewhere  in  this  report,  and 
I  have  the  honor  to  present  the  following  opinions : 

Names  of  Machines. 

The  following  machines  were  examined : 

1.  Winslow  Voting  Machine, 

by  Abbott  Voting  Machine  Company. 

2.  Columbia  Voting  Machine, 

Indianapolis,  Indiana. 
760      3.     Dean  Ballot  Machine, 

Minneapolis,  Minnesota. 

4.  International  Voting  Machine, 

Chicago,  Illinois. 

5.  Triumph  Voting  Machine, 

Pittstield,  Massachusetts. 

6.  United  States  Standard  Voting  Machine, 

Rochester,  New  York. 

Basis  of  Examination. 

The  opinions  expressed  in  this  report  are  based  on  a 
series  of  grades  given  in  two  tables  which  follow : 
Grade  Table  No.  1  contains  a  series  of  questions  or  points 
referred  to  me  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 


Breckenridge  Report — Continued. 


183 


and  Grade  Table  No.  2  contains  a  series  of  points  pre- 
pared by  the  writer  containing  some  additional  points  of 
considerable  importance  bearing  on  the  final  decisions  as 
to  the  rank  of  these  machines. 


Voting  Macjhine  Contest  foe  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Grade  Table  No.  1.— November  9,  1907. 
(A) — Questions  prepared  by  Commissioners. 


"3 

a 

No.                     QUESTION 

o 

< 

3 
S 

"3 
O 

s 

03 

Q 

E 

CD 

a 

■a 

1 

761  A.     Mechanical  Construc- 

tion 

90 

95 

100 

75 

75 

100 

B.    Mechanical  Action 

60 

95 

80 

80 

60 

100 

0    100        0      90 


85     100 


75     100      85      50      85     100 


762 


C.  Counting  Mechanism — 
Reliability  of  all  parts    100    100      75 

D.  Counters — Positiveness 
of  action.  Fimmess  in 
position.  Clinging  or 
freezing  of  parts.  Which 
has  best  protection 
against  fraudulent  ma- 
nipulation 100      80      90      90      90    100 

E.  Strength  and  delicacy 
as  to  all  parts  and  en- 
tire machine 

F.  Preventive  action.  That 
is,  will  permit  of  voting 
proper  number  of  candi- 
dates only 

G.  Liability  to  get  out  of 
order,  bv  accident,  de- 
sign, rust,  or  otherwise     0     100        0      80        0    100 

H.  Grouping  of  candidates. 

Capacity  to  arrange  for 

on  any  part  of  machine    100     100     100       90      90     100 
I.  Party  lever — How  much 

more  difficult  will  it  be  to 

operate  it,  on  an  8  or  9 

column  machine  with  70 


0    100 


184 


Breckenridge  Report — Continued. 


No. 


1 


QUESTION 


< 


es 

3 

B 

3 
O 


D 


■§. 

S 


H         D 


50 


keys  if  stored  for  six 
months  or  year  95 

J.  Which  machine  would 
be  the  least  liable  to  be 
fraudulently  manipulat- 
ed 95 

K.  Simplicity  of  arranging 
and  preparing  for  vot- 
ing 100 

L.  Which  permits  of  group 
voting  with  greatest  ease 
and  reliability 

M.  Cumulative  vote  for 
legislative  candidates — 
which  machine  shows 
best  method  for  count- 
ing, i.  e., — 1  vote  each 
for  3  candidates,  1^ 
votes  each  for  2  candi- 
dates, 3  votes  for  1  can- 
didate 

N.  Also  grade  as  to  capac- 
ity of  machine  to  ar- 
range for  cumulative 
voting  on  any  part  of 
machine  100 

0.  Are  any  springs  used 
on  machine  (2) 


100   90   90   90   95 


85  95 
100  100 
100   50 


100 
90 
90 


85  100 

100  100 

50  100 


80  .  100  100 


100 


100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

(2) 

(2) 

(2) 

(2) 

(2) 

Total  points 
Average  grade 


1054  1355  1065  1025  910  1395 

74.7  96.8  76.1  85.5  70  99.8 

5    2   4   2    6   1 

(1)  Applies  to  small  Columbia. 

(2)  Cannot  grade  on  this  question — there  were  very 
763  few  springs  used  on  any  of  these  machines  that  were 

visible.     The  specifications  must  be  consulted  for  an  an- 
swer to  this  question. 


Breckenridge  Report — Continued.  185 

Voting  Machine  Contest  foe  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Grade  Table  No.  2— November  9,  1907. 
(B) — Points  suggested  by  writer. 


-t3 

No.                 QUESTION 

•?5 

■*j 

.2 

3 

■■s 

■§. 

1h 

a 

cS 

■§.£fJ 

o 

J 

C3 

s 

1 

M 

"3  " 

Si 

< 

o 

P 

-.id 

'^4 

H 

^ 

P.  Simplicity  of  oper- 

ations  before  vot- 

ing 

50 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Q.  Simplicity  of  oper- 

ations    in     voting 

straight  ticket 

70 

70 
(1) 

100 

90 

85 

90 

95 

E.  Simplicity  of  oper- 

ations    in     voting 

. 

split  ticket 

80 

60 

85 

70 

65 

90 

100 

S.   Ease   of  manipu- 

lation 

50 

80 

100 

0 
(4) 

75 

90 

95 

T.    Accuracy   of   re- 

cording mechanism  100 

65 

80 

0 

100 

65 

100 

(2) 

(4) 

(6) 

TJ.  Permanency  of  rec- 
ords 100    100     lOO    100    100    100    100 

(5) 


V.      Excellency     of 

workmanship            100 

90 

95    100 

75 

75    100 

W.  Character  of  de- 

sign                         100 

60 

90      75 

60 

75    100 

X.   Correct   selection 

of  material               100 

90 

95     100 

85 

80    100 

764  Y.  Ease  of  provision 

for  cumulative  vot- 

ing                           100 

80 

lOO    100 

? 

0    100 

(3) 

(5) 

(7) 

Z.  Accuracy  of  plan 

for  voting  10  coun- 

ty commissioners   100 

0 

100        0 

100 

0    100 

Total  points 

795 

1045    915 

845 

765  1090 

Average  grade 

72.3 

95      83.2  84.5  69.5  99.0 

5        2        4        3        6        1 
Position  of  voting  board, 
** Vertical  or  horizontal  Vert.  Vert.  Hor.  Hor.  Vert.  Vert. 


186  Breckenridge  Report — Continued. 

(1)  Required  2  handles  to  vote  1  ticket. 

(2)  Yes  and  no  were  interchanged. 

(3)  Plan  on  small  machine  examined. 

(4)  Machine  out  of  order,  might  have  graded  S-95, 
T-95,  if  it  works. 

(5)  Apparently  correct,  but  could  not  easily  exam- 
ine. 

(6)  Index  to  candidates  tended  to  fly  back  when  vot- 
ing other  candidates  of  same  party. 

(7)  No  plan  provided. 

(8)  Average  includes  grades  on  machine  assumed  in 
working  order,  see  footnote  (4). 

765  The  Method  of  Grading. 

It  should  be  stated  that  the  method  of  grading  used 
in  the  tables  consisted  in  selecting  what  appeared  to  be 
that  machine  best  satisfying  the  point  or  question  under 
consideration  and  marking  that  macliine  100  for  that 
point.  The  other  machines  were  then  graded  as  they 
compared  with  the  100  mark  given  the  first  machine. 

Doubtless  some  comparative  weights  should  be  as- 
signed to  the  several  points  on  which  marks  were  given. 
In  Grade  Table  No.  2,  prepared  by  the  writer,  such 
weights  have  been  suggested.  No  attempt  has  been  made 
by  the  writer  to  give  weights  to  the  questions  submitted 
by  the  Commissioners  as  exhibited  in  Grade  Table  No.  1, 
so  that  the  final  relative  standing  as  deduced  in  this 
table  assumes  an  equal  weight  for  each  question.  Where 
no  grade  is  given  in  the  tables,  the  writer  was  not  pre- 
pared to  mark  that  point  because  of  lack  of  exact  knowl- 
edge of  all  the  facts.  No  points  of  great  importance  are 
left  without  grades. 

Result  of  Examination. 

As  the  result  of  my  examination  I  am  of  the  opinion 
that  the  machine  which  best  fulfills  the  requirements  of 
a  voting  machine  for  the  City  of  Chicago  from  the  stand- 
point of  good  mechanical  design,  good  construction,  sound 
mechanical  principles,  good  materials,  accuracy  and  sim- 
plicity of  operation  and  recording  is  the  United  States 
Standard  Voting  Machine  manufactured  by  the  U.  S. 
Standard  Voting  Machine  Co.,  Rochester,  New  York. 

766  Second  in  rank  and  not  far  behind  the  first  choice  I 
should  place  the  Columbia  Voting  Machine,  manufactured 
by  the  Columbia  Voting  Machine  Company,  Indianapolis, 
Indiana. 


Breckenridge  Report — Continued.  187 

Various  faults  of  design,  construction,  character  of 
materials  or  poor  operation  place  the  other  four  ma- 
chines considerably  below  the  first  two  and  it  would  not 
be  just  to  attempt  any  comparative  ranking  of  these  four 
machines. 

Bespectfully  submitted, 

(signed)     L.  P.  Breckenridge, 
Professor  of  Mechanical  Engineering, 
University  of  Illinois. 
"Supplemental  to  report  on  Voting  Machines  for  the 
City  of  Chicago: 

For  purposes  of  publication,  if  such  should  be  desired, 
it  may  be  that  the  preceding  report  is  sufficient.  You 
requested  me,  however,  to  make  any  statements  I  might 
choose  setting  forth  my  reasons  for  certain  opinions  ad- 
vanced in  this  report,  and  this  I  have  decided  to  do  in 
the  followdng  pages  which  may  be  regarded  as  supple- 
mental to  the  main  report. 

General.  Discussion  op  Pbinciples  Invovx.ed  in  the  Opin- 
ions Expressed. 

When  any  mechanical  device  is  invented  and  con- 
767  structed  to  accomplish  a  new  purpose  or  to  perform  an  or- 
dinary service  in  a  new  way,  it  is  frequently  the  duty  of 
an  engineer  to  pass  judgment  on  such  new  device  or 
apparatus  as  to  its  value  or  as  to  its  efficiency  in  accom- 
plishing the  specific  purpose  for  which  it  was  designed. 
There  are  three  fundamental  principles  which  must  be 
given  consideration  in  the  attempt  to  reach  a  just  con- 
clusion in  all  such  examinations.  The  principles  re- 
ferred to  are  concisely  expressed  by  three  words:  De- 
sign, construction,  materials.  If  perfection  is  to  be 
reached,  each  of  these  three  principles  must  be  under- 
stood and  intelligently  used  in  the  construction  of  any 
and  all  engineering  works  or  manufactured  articles. 

Design. 

The  design  of  a  mechanical  device,  a  typewriter,  for 
instance,  will  take  many  and  varied  forms  according  as 
the  designer  wishes  to  emphasize  some  special  features 
or  because  he  gives  much  attention  to  those  methods  of 
production  which  will  result  in  cheapness  of  first  cost. 
Just  which  form  will  appeal  to  the  public  cannot  always 
be  foreseen.     But  whatever  the  final  shape  taken  by  any 


188  Breckenridge  Report — Continued. 

device  may  1>e,  there  are  certain  mechanical  principles 
which  must  not  be  violated  or  the  design  is  defective. 

768  Again,  when  a  machine  is  designed  which  must  be  op- 
erated by  many  different  people,  it  is  highly  important 
that  not  only  may  this  machine  be  correctly  operated  by 
such  as  are  generally  familiar  with  similar  mechanisms, 
but  it  must  be  so  designed  that  it  cannot  be  wrongly  op- 
erated by  those  unfamiliar  with  mechanical  devices  in 
general.  It  must  then  be  so  simple  and  so  easily  oper- 
ated that  it  will  be  clear  to  the  operator  that  he  has  prop- 
erly operated  it.  On  the  matter  of  design  there  will  be 
much  opportunity  for  a  difference  of  opinion.  This  will 
be  due  to  the  difference  in  the  training  of  the  experts 
whose  opinion  is  expressed.  The  practical  expert  may 
entirely  overlook  a  violation  of  the  principles  of  mechan- 
ics, and  the  theoretical  expert  may  fail  to  comprehend 
that  certain  methods  of  construction  used  are  vital  to  the 
design  if  the  machine  is  to  be  made  a  commercial  suc- 
cess. While  therefore  the  matter  of  design  is  of  the  ut- 
most importance  it  might  easily  occur  that  there  should  be 
in  this  respect  a  wide  difference  of  opinion  among  ex- 
perts making  a  careful  examination  of  any  device,  as 
well  as  among  the  users  and  purchasers  of  the  device  it- 
self. 

Construction. 

By  this  is  meant  the  character  of  the  workmanship  em- 
ployed in  carrying  out  the  constructive  plans  contem- 
plated by  the  design.  Good  workmanship  can  be  passed 
upon  easily  by  expert  or  non-expert  alike.  Good  con- 
struction at  the  right  points  is  essential  to  satisfactory 
and  lasting  operating.      Poor  construction  may  easily 

769  ruin  a  good  design.  Inferior  construction  may  sometimes 
be  justified  in  early  models  where  the  machine  does  not 
enter  into  competition  with  other  machines,  but  when  it 
does  enter  into  such  competition  the  workmanship  should 
at  least  be  equal  to  that  which  is  contemplated  for  the 
machine  when  it  is  placed  on  the  market. 

Materials. 

The  determination  of  the  materials  to  be  used  for  each 
part  of  a  machine  might  rightfully  be  considered  as  a 
part  of  the  design.  It  is,  however,  of  so  much  importance 
that  the  writer  prefers  to  give  it  equal  prominence  with 
design  and  construction.    The  materials  used  in  any  ma- 


Breckenridge  Report — Continued.  189 

chine  should  be  chosen  with  reference  to  their  strength, 
durability,  ease  of  manufacture,  adaptability,  and  cost. 
Opinions  may  differ  somewhat  as  to  the  best  material 
suited  for  various  machine  parts,  and  the  change  in  the 
price  of  some  metal  such  as  zinc  or  copper  might  make 
the  use  of  different  materials  justifiable  at  different  times. 
The  mistakes  to  be  avoided  are  the  uses  of  materials 
which  deteriorate  either  in  use  or  when  at  rest.    The  use 

769  to  which  the  machine  is  to  be  put  will  often  determine  the 
material  to  be  used.  While  only  steel  or  wrought  iron  is 
permissible  in  a  power  plant  boiler,  neither  of  these  ma- 
terials should  be  allowed  in  a  residence  heating  boiler, 
the  latter  demanding  cast  iron,  which  endures  non-use  in 
summer  much  better  because  of  its  lesser  tendency  to  rust. 

Appucation  of  the  Above  Principles  to  the  Voting  Ma- 
chines Examined. 

The  matter  immediately  preceding  this  section  has  been 
presented  in  order  to  indicate  in  a  general  way  the  point 
of  view  of  the  writer,  which  has  resulted  in  the  opinion 
expressed  in  this  report.  With  this  explanation,  there 
need  only  be  recorded  a  brief  statement  as  to  how  each  of 
the  machines  examined  fulfills  or  fails  to  fulfill  those 
conditions  which  should  be  made  to  determine  the  stand- 
ing of  any  and  all  mechanical  devices. 

1.     Winslow  Voting  Machine. 

(1)  The  design  (60)  was  defective  as  follows: 

(a)  Must  operate  two  handles  to  vote  one  straight 
ticket. 

(b)  Position  of  black  pins  whether  out  or  in  not  easily 
observed. 

(c)  The  plan  for  group  voting  is  defective  because  a 

770  chain  is  used  to  determine  the  number  of  candidates  that 
may  be  voted  for. 

(2)  The  construction  was  satisfactory.     (90.) 

(3)  The  materials  were  satisfactoiy.     (90.) 

771  2.     Columbia  Voting  Maddne. 

(1)  The  design  (90)  was  good  and  could  easily  be 
made  a  satisfactory  machine.    Should  criticise : 

(a)  Split  ticket  not  easily  voted  and  it  is  not  very 
clear  what  has  been  voted. 

(2)  The  construction  was  very  satisfactory.  (95.) 

(3)  The  materials  were  satisfactory.    (95.) 


190  Breckenridge  Report — Continued. 

3.  Bean  Ballot  Machine. 

(1)  The  design  (75)  was  defective  as  follows: 

(a)  Horizontal  board  not  as  good  as  vertical. 

(b)  Positions  of  square  pins  not  easily  observed. 

(c)  Voting  pins  not  easily  operated  without  moving 
others. 

(d)  Sacrificed  clearness  for  compactness. 

This  machine  was  evidently  out  of  order  when  exam- 
ined, which  gave  it  low-grade  mark,  but  even  in  working 
order  its  design  is  defective  as  indicated  above. 

(2)  The  construction  was  most  excellent.    (100.) 

(3)  The  materials  were  very  satisfactory.    (100.) 

4.  International  Voting  Machine. 

(1)  The  design  (60)  was  defective  as  follows: 

(a)  Horizontal  board  not  as  good  as  vertical. 

(b)  Position  of  voting  pins  not  easily  observed. 

(c)  Sacrificed  clearness  for  compactness. 

(d)  Some  parts  of  machine  were  too  small. 

772       (e)     Much  difficulty  in  arranging  for  the  printing  of 
results. 

(2)  The  construction  (75)  was  not  easily  seen  inter- 
nally, but  in  general  was  not  up  to  the  grade  of  some 
other  machines. 

(3     The  materials  (85)  were  fairly  satisfactory. 

5.  Triii/mph  Voting  Machine. 

(1)  The  design  (75)  was  defective  as  follows: 

(a)  The  use  of  a  chain  for  group  voting  made  tamper- 
ing possible,  a  poor  mechanical  device  for  this  purpose. 

(b)  Voting  pins  turned  down  would  fly  back  when 
other  names  in  same  part  were  voted. 

(c)  Was  not  arranged  for  all  means  of  voting  called 
for  in  the  specifications. 

(2)  The  construction  (75)  was  not  very  good. 

(3)  The  materials  (80)  were  not  well  selected  for  pre- 
vention of  rust  when  machine  was  out  of  use. 

6.  United  States  Standard  Voting  Machine. 

(1)  The  design  (100)  was  evidently  the  best  of  the 
machines  examined.  The  grade  of  100  does  not  signify 
perfection  of  design,  but  only  means  that  this  machine 
should  be  graded  the  highest  and  so  it  is  marked  100  so 
that  the  other  machines  may  be  easily  compared  with  it. 

(2)  The  construction  (100)  was  most  excellent. 

(3)  The  materials  (100)  were  very  satisfactory. 


Breckenridge  Report — Continwed.  191 

Explanations. 

In  the  above  brief  review  there  has  been  inserted  the 
grade  numbers  from  the  grade  table  No.  2.  This  serves 
to  show  just  what  valuation  has  been  put  on  the  three 
important  points  which  may  in  a  measure  be  taken  to 
represent  the  standing  of  these  machines. 

In  Conclusion. 

The  problems  which  are  presented  to  the  designer  of 
voting  machines  are  certainly  complicated  and  difficult. 
It  is  evident  that  the  designers  and  the  builders  of  the 
six  machines  upon  which  a  report  has  herein  been  pre- 
sented have  all  made  a  most  careful  and  intelligent  study 
of  the  problem.  It  has  not  been  a  simple  undertaking  to 
form  an  opinion  which  shall  do  exact  justice  to  all  of  the 
machines  examined. 

773  AVhenever  any  point  of  defective  design  or  construc- 
tion was  clearly  evident  in  any  machine,  that  particular 
machine  was  not  as  carefully  examined  for  grading  under 
other  points.  Still,  after  all,  the  writer  feels  that  the  re- 
sult of  grading  the  several  points  considered,  reaches  a 
result  corresponding  with  that  general  all  around  opinion 
which  is  formed  by  an  inspection  of  the  various  machines, 
combined  with  an  attempt  to  operate  each  machine  ac- 
cording to  the  directions  furnished  and  from  the  point  of 

774  view  which  would  be  taken  by  the  great  mass  of  voters 
for  the  use  of  whom  the  machine  was  designed. 

I  desire  to  express  to  your  honorable  Board  my  appre- 
ciation of  the  confidence  you  repose  in  me  when  you  ask 
my  opinion  as  to  the  merits,  from  a  mechanical  stand- 
point of  the  voting  machines  submitted  for  purchase,  to 
the  City  of  Chicago.  I  thank  you  for  your  assistance 
rendered  during  the  days  of  the  examination.  I  trast 
you  will  find  hopeful  suggestions  in  what  I  have  reported. 
Eespectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)     L.  P.  Breokenbidgb, 
Professor  of  Mechanical  Engineering, 
University  of  Illinois. 


192  Report  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

Nov.  15,  1907. 

Professor  Breckenridge's  Report  on  Voting  Machines; 
Machines  examined  were 
Winslow  (Abbott). 
Columbia. 
Dean. 

International. 
Triumph. 
U.  S.  Standard. 


Mr.  McEwEN.    I  am  reading  from  0-13,  report  of  C. 

775  DePuy,  on  the  American  Vote  Register,  the  Columbia, 
Triumph,  U.  S.  Standard,  Winslow  and  Willix.  I  will 
read  his  resume  and  then  confine  my  reading,  I  think,  to 
the  U.  S.  Standard  and  Einpire  Machine  unless  the  other 
side  should  prefer  to  have  it  all. 

Mr.  Deneen.    It  will  all  be  printed  in  full  in  the  record. 
Mr.  McEwEN.    Oh,  yes. 
Mr.  Deneex.    Regardless  of  what  you  read? 
Mr.  McEwEN.    Yes,  I  assume  so ;  I  am  furnishing  them 
with  copies  that  are  offered  in  evidence. 
Mr.  Beneejst.    All  right. 
The  Chairman.    What  is  the  date  please? 
Mr.  MoEwEN.    The  date  is  March  9, 1908,  the  next  year. 

Points  Noted  Regaeding  Voting  Machines. 

The  grading  of  these  voting  machines  on  the  basis  asked 
is,  in  some  respects  difficult,  and  I  fear  may  be  the  cause 
of  some  misunderstanding.  The  counters,  for  instance, 
are  nearly  all  made  by  the  Veeder  Cyclometer  Company, 
and  are  of  practically  the  same  construction,  and  hence 
are  of  the  same  reliability.  On  the  Winslow  and  U.  S. 
Standard  machines  the  counters  are  made  on  the  same 
principle,  but  the  parts  are  larger,  and,  I  think,  more 
durable.  They  are  not  enclosed  in  separate  cases,  but 
are  embodied  in  the  general  construction  of  the  machines. 
On  the  Winslow  there  is  a  spring  hook  that  catches  over 
a  ratchet  wheel  attached  to  the  unit  counter  which  turns 
the  wheel  one  notch  for  each  vote.  The  counter  is  good, 
but  the  connection  may  not  be  positive,  always. 

776  The  Standard  operates  in  a  similar  way,  but  has  not  a 
spring  catch. 


DePtiy  Report — Continued.  193 

The  Columbia  has  each  counter  pinned  on  a  square 
shaft  that  makes  a  complete  revolution  for  each  vote  or 
unit  on  the  counter,  and  I  consider  the  action  more  posi- 
tive and  the  Avhole  mechanism  more  reliable,  although 
the  counters  are  not  secured  as  rigidly  on  the  machine 
as  those  on  either  the  Winslow  or  the  Standard. 

The  counters  on  the  Triumph  machine  are  rigidly  held 
in  place,  and  the  voting  action  is  positive,  but  the  pin, 
through  which  connection  to  the  counter  is  made,  is  not 
substantially  held  onto  the  counter  disc,  and  I  think  will 
in  time  work  loose.  The  keys  on  this  machine  do  not 
seem  to  be  very  firmly  held  in  the  voting  position,  and 
after  being  once  set  are  sometimes  moved  back  to  the  non- 
voting position  in  the  manipulation  of  other  keys.  The 
method  employed  for  restricting  the  number  of  votes  is 
practically  the  same  on  the  Columbia,  the  U.  S.  Standard, 
and  the  Winslow,  but  the  number  of  pieces  employed  is 
much  less  on  the  Columbia,  and  the  action  is  smooth,  and 
I  think  reliable.  A  more  positive  action  would  be  secured, 
however,  by  making  the  steel  strips  connecting  the  voting 
keys  to  the  restricting  wedges  thicker,  and  hence  stiffer. 
I  found  that  the  wedges  do  not  always  go  down  the  en- 
tire distance.  The  restricting  wedges  used  on  the  revised 
Triumph  Machine  are  a  great  improvement  over  the 
chain,  but  the  action  is  not  as  positive  as  it  ought  to  be. 
The  restriction  depends  entirely  on  the  width  of  the 
wedges  at  the  line  of  action,  and  a  little  wear  on  the 
wedges,  pins  or  raising  strips  will  change  this  ^vidth 
777  enough  to  make  a  large  group  unreliable.  On  the  three 
machines  before  mentioned  the  wedges  become  parallel 
blocks  in  the  voting  position,  and  a  little  wear  on  the 
lifting  mechanism  will  not  aflfect  the  number  that  can  be 
voted.  The  principle  used  in  restricting  the  cimiulative 
vote  is  also  the  same  on  the  Columbia,  the  U.  S.  Stand- 
ard, and  the  Winslow,  but  again  the  Columbia  has  much 
the  simpler  construction.  The  possibility  of  adjustment 
and  result  are  the  same  on  the  IT.  S.  Standard,  but  there 
are  many  more  pieces  employed,  and  they  are  much  more 
delicate  and  more  likely  to  get  out  of  order.  On  the  Wins- 
low machine  the  number  of  combinations  is  not  as  great, 
and  the  device  cannot  be  moved  to  another  part  of  the 
machine  without  also  changing  the  raising  strips  and 
wedges,  which  would  add  considerable  work  and  annoy- 
ance. 


194  DePuy  Report — Continued. 

As  a  result  of  my  investigations  of  the  six  macliines 
shown,  if  I  were  to  choose  one  of  them,  I  should  select 
the  Columbia.  It  seems  to  accomplish  all  that  any  of 
them  will,  except  that  it  does  not  show  the  actual  arrange- 
ment when  voting  the  straight  ticket;  it  has  fewer  parts 
than  any  of  the  others,  and  is  simpler  to  adjust  and  main- 
tain in  the  proper  working  order. 

The  U.  S.  Standard. 

This  machine  also  meets  all  the  requirements  as  to  the 
arrangement  of  tickets  and  group  voting,  but  it  has  many 
parts  and  springs  which  make  it  quite  complicated,  and 
I  think  it  might  be  difficult  to  maintain.  It  is  also  heavj' 
and  hard  to  transport. 

The  Winslow. 

778  This  machine  is  not  as  readily  adjustable  to  any  and 
all  conditions  as  it  should  be,  and  the  action  is  not  always 
positive  in  voting  a  ticket,  the  knobs  do  not  return  to 
their  extreme  position,  which  makes  it  possible  to  tell  by 
inspection  some,  at  least,  of  the  candidates  that  have  been 
voted. 

The  Triumph. 

The  changes  made  in  this  machine  make  it  much  more 
reliable  than  it  was  at  the  previous  contest,  but  the  re- 
stricting for  the  groups  is  not  entirely  reliable,  and  I 
think  it  has  too  many  moving  parts  in  the  connection  to 
the  keys  to  be  durable.  The  cumulative  vote  arrange- 
ment also  is  not  readily  adjustable  to  any  part  of  the 
machine. 

The  American  Vote  Register. 

The  construction  of  this  machine  is  such  that  its  action 
is  entirely  unreliable.  It  could  very  easily  be  put  out  of 
service  during  an  election  by  one  so  inclined,  even  if  it 
would  vote  right  at  the  beginning. 

The  Willix. 

This  machine  is  evidently  in  a  very  crude  and  unper- 
fected  state.  It  has  some  interesting  points,  but  as  shown 
its  action  is  entirely  unreliable. 

I  do  not  consider  any  of  the  machines  shown  to  be 
suitable  to  the  needs  of  the  voters  of  Chicago.  These 
that  do  the  work  satisfactorily  are  too    large    and    un- 


Report  of  0.  A.  Leutwiler,  195 

wieldy,  and  would,  I  think,  be  a  cause  of  constant  an- 
noyance and  expense  in  excess  of  any  gain  derived. 
Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     C.  E.  DePuy. 
March  9,  1908. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  read  from  the  report  of  March  10, 
1908,  from  C.  A.  Leutwiler  on  the  same  group  of  ma- 
chines : 

Ukbana,  Illinois,  March  18,  1908. 
The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of 

Chicago,  Illinois. 
Gentlemen  : — 

Enclosed  find  my  repoi-t  on  the  examination  of  six 
voting  machines  for  the  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers of  the  City  of  Chicago.    Trusting  that  the  report  will 
give  you  the  information  you  desired,  I  am 
Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)  0.  A.  Leutwiler, 
Assistant  Professor  in  Machine  Design. 

Report  of  the  Examination 
780  of 

Six  Voting  Machines 

for 

The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 

of  the 

City  of  Chicago,  Illinois. 

Approved 

0.  A.  Leutwiler, 

Assistant  Professor  of  Machine  Design 
University  of  Illinois. 
Urbana,  Illinois,  March  10,  1908. 

Urbana,  Illinois,  March  10,  1908. 
The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of 

Chicago,  Illinois. 
Gentlemen  : — 

In  accordance  with  your  request  I  have  examined  the 
six  voting  machines  named  below  and  I  have  the  honor 
to  present  the  following  report : 
Make  of  Machines. 

The  following  machines  were  examined : 

1.  American  Vote  Register. 

2.  Columbia  Voting  Machine. 

3.  Triumph  Voting  Machine. 


196  Leutwiler  Report — Continued. 

781  4.     United  Stales  Standard  Voting  Machine, 

5.  Willix  Voting  Machine. 

6.  "Winslow  Voting  Machine, 

Basis  of  Examination. 

The  opinions  expressed  in  this  report  are  based  on  a 
series  of  grades  given  in  the  following  tables,  the  first 
of  which  contains  a  series  of  questions  referred  to  me  by 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  and  the  second  a 
series  of  questions  suggested  by  the  writer,  which  in- 
fluence to  a  certain  degree  his  final  decision  as  to  the 
rank  of  these  machines. 

Basis  of  Grading. 

The  grades  in  these  tables  are  arrived  at  as  follows: 
The  machine  that  seemed  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of 
the  question  under  consideration  in  the  best  manner  was 
marked  100.  The  other  machines  were  then  graded  hx 
comparing  them  with  the  one  selected  as  the  ideal. 

The  average  grade  given  at  the  bottom  of  Table  No.  1 
is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  each  question  is  of 
equal  weight.  Probably  it  might  have  been  well  to  assign 
weights  to  the  various  questions  as  some  are  of  more  im- 
portance than  others.  This  was  attempted  in  Table  No. 
2,  as  indicated  in  the  second  column. 

General  Discussion. 

782  In  order  to  arrive  at  correct  conclusions  in  the  exam- 
ination of  these  voting  machines  the  following  funda- 
mental principles  were  given  serious  consideration. 

I.  Design. 

A  voting  machine  must  be  so  designed  that  any  one 
familiar  with  mechanical  devices  is  capable  of  operating 
it  easily  and  at  the  same  time  correctly.  Probably  the 
most  important  point  in  the  design  of  these  machines  is 
that  which  absolutely  prevents  the  fraudulent  manipula- 
tion of  the  machine  by  either  the  voter  or  the  judges. 
The  question  of  what  material  to  select  for  each  part  is 
another  important  point  and  is  considered  by  the  writer 
as  a  part  of  the  design.  The  size  and  weight  of  a  ma- 
chine must  also  be  considered,  as  a  bulky  and  heavy 
machine  increases  the  storage  and  carting  charges  and 
at  the  same  time  the  polling  places  must  be  so  selected 
that  the  machine  may  easily  be  installed.    A  voting  ma- 


Leutwiler  Report — Continued.  197 

chine  which  is  very  complicated  requires  more  skilled 
experts  to  prepare  it  for  voting  and  to  maintain  it  in 
proper  working  order. 

77.     Construction. 

By  construction  is  meant  the  character  of  workman- 
ship employed  in  the  making  of  the  machine.  Many  well 
designed  machines  have  turned  out  to  be  failures  due  to 
faulty  construction.  In  a  voting  machine  it  is  essential 
to  have  good  construction  as  that  prolongs  its  life  con- 

783  siderably,  and  keeps  down  the  repair  charges. 

Application  of  these  Pbinciples  to  the  Machines  Ex- 
amined. 

(1)     American  Vote  Register. 

This  machine  is  very  simple  considered  from  a  me- 
chanical standpoint,  and  required  but  two  operations 
when  voting  a  straight  ticket.  When  voting  a  split  ticket 
this  machine  is  very  inconvenient  in  that  a  large  num- 
ber of  levers  must  be  handled,  and  in  voting  for  County 
Commissioners,  University  Trustees,  Judge  of  Circuit 
Court  and  Representatives  in  the  General  Assembly  the 
names  of  the  candidates  one  wishes  to  vote  for  must  be 
written  on  a  separate  ticket.  These  tickets  are  then  in- 
serted in  the  proper  slots  provided  near  the  bottom  of 
the  machine.  By  proper  manipulation  the  writer  cast 
two  such  ballots  in  each  case.  The  possibility  of  doing 
this  is  a  very  serious  defect  of  the  machine.  It  was  also 
possible  to  cast  two  votes  for  the  same  party,  when  vot- 
ing a  straight  ticket,  which  is  another  serious  defect  in 
the  design.  Another  disadvantage  of  this  machine  is  the 
large  number  of  ballots  that  must  be  counted  by  the 
judges,  which  is  one  of  the  points  a  voting  machine 
should  avoid.  One  lock  is  not  sufficient  to  secure  the  ma- 
chine against  fraudulent  manipulation  as  any  one  of  the 

784  judges  in  the  absence  of  the  other  two  might  easily  op- 
erate the  machine  to  the  advantage  of  his  party.  The  se- 
lection of  the  materials  for  this  machine  and  its  construc- 
tion are  very  satisfactory  as  indicated  by  the  grade  in 
Table  No.  2. 

The  machine  has  an  advantage  in  that  it  is  of  small 
size  and  weight  thus  decreasing  storage  and  carting 
charges. 


198  Leutwiler  Report — Continued. 

(2)     Columbia  Voting  Machine. 

The  design  of  this  machine  is  probably  the  best  of  any 
machine  the  writer  examined.  The  operations  required 
for  voting  a  straight  ticket  are  very  simple  and  easy  to 
perform.  In  voting  a  split  ticket  a  voter  may  encounter 
some  difficulty  in  telling  at  a  glance  for  whom  he  has 
voted.  This  is  due  to  the  use  of  round  knobs  instead  of 
small  levers  as  is  done  in  some  of  the  other  machines. 
This  machine  works  very  satisfactorily  for  all  groups  and 
cumulative  voting,  and  it  was  impossible  to  so  manipu- 
late the  keys  that  more  than  the  legal  number  of  votes 
could  be  cast  in  any  one  case. 

A  serious  defect  of  the  machine  is  that  by  the  use  of  a 
strong  rubber  band,  the  writer  was  able  to  deprive  a 
voter  of  several  votes.  This  rubber  band  was  so  located 
that  it  was  rather  difficult  for  an  ordinary  person  to 
detect.  The  fact  that  the  keys  make  a  complete  revolu- 
lution  and  always  in  the  same  direction  makes  it  more 
difficult  to  attach  the  rubber  band  than  in  some  of  the 
other  machines.  This  machine  has  advantages  over  the 
785  U.  S.  Standard  in  that  a  rubber  band  placed  on  any  key 
so  as  to  lock  it,  will  not  affect  the  vote  when  a  person 
votes  a  straight  ticket,  as  the  machine  is  equipped  with 
a  ' '  straight  party  key. ' ' 

It  is  practically  impossible  for  the  judges  to_  manip- 
ulate the  machine  fraudulently,  as  two  locks  having  sep- 
arate keys  are  provided,  thus  one  judge  of  one  party 
takes  one  key  and  the  other  goes  to  the  judge  of  the  sec- 
ond party.  This  means  that  both  parties  are  represented 
when  the  machine  is  being  prepared  for  the  voting.  The 
same  remarks  apply  when  the  polls  are  closed  and  the 
votes  are  being  counted. 

The  selection  of  the  material  and  the  workmanship  in 
this  machine  are  of  a  very  high  class  and  in  the  opinion 
of  the  writer  this  machine  comes  nearest  fulfilling  all 
the  requirements  of  an  ideal  voting  machine. 

This  machine  occupies  considerable  space  and  is  rather 
heavy. 

(3)     Triumph. 

The  design  of  this  machine  was  defective  in  the  fol- 
lowing points:  (1)  In  voting  a  split  ticket  the  small 
brass  keys  in  some  instances  are  hard  to  operate.  (2) 
In  voting  for  the  fourteen  judges  of  the  Circuit  Court, 


Leutwiler  Report — Continued.  199 

the  grouping  mechanism  was  found  to  be  defective  in 
that  the  writer  was  able  to  vote  for  fifteen  judges.  In 
this  connection  it  might  be  mentioned  that  the  part  of 
this  machine  used  for  voting  for  the  above  named  judges 
is  supposed  to  be  an  improved  device  over  the  cliain 
mechanism  formerly  used.  It  is  understood  that  the  en- 
tire machine  was  not  arranged  for  voting  for  County 
'Commissioners  as  called  for  by  the  specifications.  (4) 
With  a  sufficiently  strong  rubber  band  it  is  possible  to 
hold  some  of  the  keys  so  that  some  votes  may  be  lost, 
unless  the  voter  detects  the  rubber  bands.  (5)  The  ma- 
chine has  an  insufficient  number  of  locks  to  secure  it 
against  fraudulent  manipulation  by  the  judges. 

The  folio-wing  are  some  of  the  advantages  the  machine 
possesses:  (1)  If  a  mistake  is  made  in  voting  the  keys 
may  be  put  back  into  the  original  position  very  quickly, 
by  means  of  the  lever  resetting.  (2)  The  space  occu- 
pied by  the  machine,  also  its  weight  is  less  than  some 
of  the  other  machines. 

The  selection  of  the  material  might  be  improved  upon, 
also  the  workmanship. 

(4)     United  States  Standard  Voting  Machine. 

The  design  of  this  machine  comes  up  to  about  the  same 
standard  set  by  the  Columbia  machine  as  the  grades 
given  in  the  tables  indicate.    The  operations  for  voting  a 

786  straight  ticket  are  not  quite  as  simple  as  those  on  the 
Columbia  in  that  all  the  keys  are  moved  which  makes  it 
harder  to  operate.  Voting  a  split  ticket  the  operations 
on  this  machine  are  about  the  same  as  those  on  the  Co- 
lumbia. The  keys  on  this  machine  are  in  the  form  of 
small  levers  painted  black,  which  enables  one  to  tell  at 
a  glance  for  whom  a  person  has  voted.  The  machine 
works  satisfactorily  for  all  group  and  cumulative  voting, 
and  it  is  impossible  to  so  manipulate  the  keys  as  to  per- 

787  mit  a  person  to  cast  more  than  the  legal  number  of  votes 
in  any  one  case. 

As  in  the  Columbia  machine  the  writer  could  by 
means  of  strong  rubber  bands  very  readily  deprive  a 
voter  of  several  votes.  It  is  easier  to  attach  rubber 
bands  to  the  keys  of  this  machine  than  it  was  on  the  Co- 
lumbia as  these  keys  are  angular  and  furthermore  do 
not  make  a  complete  turn. 

A  sufficient  number  of  locks  having  separate  keys  are 


200  Leutwiler  Report — Continued. 

provided  on  this  macliine  wliicli  prevent  fraudulent  ma- 
nipulation by  the  judges  while  the  machine  is  being  pre- 
pared for  voting.  The  same  may  be  said  of  opening  the 
machine  to  count  the  votes  after  closing  the  polls. 

The  materials  used  and  the  workmanship  in  this  ma- 
chine are  as  good  as  on  any  machine  examined,  and  in 
the  opinion  of  the  writer  this  machine  is  almost  the  equal 
of  the  Columbia.  It  is  rather  bulky  and  about  the 
heaviest  machine  examined,  which  are  points  not  in  its 
favor. 

(5)  Willix  Voting  Machine. 

The  design  of  this  machine  was  defective  in  the  fol- 
lowing points:  (1)  In  group  voting  the  mechanism 
was  found  defective,  and  the  writer  was  able  to  vote  for 
twenty-one  judges  for  the  Superior  Court  where  seven- 
teen should  have  been  the  maximum  allowable.  (2)  It 
was  possible  to  cast  nine  votes  for  Eepresentatives  in 
the  General  Assembly  instead  of  only  three.  (3)  Neither 
keys  nor  counters  are  numbered  or  marked  so  that  it  is 
a  rather  difficult  matter  to  insure  a  correct  count.  (6) 
The  machine  is  not  equipped  with  sufficient  locks  to  pre- 
vent manipulation  just  before  opening  the  polls  als/) 
after  closing. 

The  selection  of  the  materials  used  in  this  machine 
might  be  improved  upon  considerably  also  the  workman- 
ship. The  machine  is  not  very  heavy  and  does  not  take 
up  so  very  much  room. 

(6)  Winslow  Voting  Machine. 

788  The  design  of  this  machine  is  fair  though  not  quite  as 
good  as  in  the  case  of  the  Columbia  and  IT.  S.  Standard 
machines.  Some  of  the  defects  are  as  follows:  (1) 
When  voting  a  straight  ticket  all  the  keys  on  the  board 
are  operated  which  necessarily  makes  it  work  a  trifle 
hard.  (2)  The  machine  is  equipped  with  two  separate 
levers  which  must  be  operated  by  the  voter,  one  at  the 
entrance  end  of  the  machine  which  sets  the  machine  when 
the  voter  enters  and  the  other  registers  his  vote  as  he 
passes  out.  (3)  Since  the  voting  keys  are  round  and  are 
perpendicular  to  the  board  it  is  not  so  easy  to  see  readily 
for  Avhom  one  has  voted.  These  keys  must  all  be  pulled 
outwards  in  voting.  (4)  The  writer  found  that  some  of 
the  keys  in  the  County  Commissioners  group  would  not 


LeutwUer  Report — Continued.  201 

remain  in  the  out  position,  but  would  continually  slide 
back,  thereby  depriving  the  candidate  of  those  votes. 
(5)  In  examining  the  interior  of  the  machine  at  the  bot- 
tom, the  writer  found  a  rubber  band  attached  to  a  lever 
but  could  not  find  out  for  what  purporse  it  was  there. 

As  in  the  Triumph  machine  we  have  a  releasing  lever 
which  quickly  brings  all  the  keys  into  the  original  posi- 
tion if  a  mistake  is  made  in  voting.  The  machine  is 
rather  heavy  but  does  not  take  up  excessive  room.  In 
weight  it  is  next  to  the  U.  S.  Standard. 

The  selection  of  materials  and  workmanship  is  very 
satisfactory.  The  machine  is  secured  against  fraudu- 
lent manipulation  by  the  judges  by  only  one  lock  which  is, 
not  sufficient. 

789  CoNCLtrsiON. 

The  writer  having  given  Professor  Breckenridge  some 
assistance  in  the  first  examination  of  the  voting  ma- 
chines submitted  to  your  Board  in  November,  1907,  can- 
not help  but  remark  upon  the  improvements  made  in 
some  of  the  machines  since  that  time.  The  question  im- 
mediately arises,  why  will  not  voting  machines  continue 
to  improve  until  the  fraudulent  manipulation  mentioned 
in  the  foregoing  section  of  this  report  will  be  entirely 
eliminated.  Until  this  is  accomplished  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago  would  be 
entirely  justified  in  postponing  the  purchase  of  voting 
machines. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  writer  the  machine  that  comes 
nearest  to  fulfilling  all  the  conditions  required  of  a  vot- 
ing machine  is  the  Columbia  Voting  Machine.  Next  in 
rank  and  not  far  behind  comes  the  United  States  Stand- 
ard Voting  Machine. 

The  writer  Mashes  to  thank  your  honorable  Board  for 
the  assistance  rendered  and  the  courtesies  shown  dur- 
ing the  days  of  the  examination. 

Eespectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)     0.  A.  Leutwiler, 
Assistant  Professor  of  Machine  Design, 
University  of  Illinois. 


202 


Leutwiler  Report — Continued. 


791     VOTING  MACHINE  CONTEST  FOR  THE  CITY  OF  CHICAGO, 
GRADE  TABLE  No.  1— March  4,  1908.- 

Questions  prepared  by  Commissioners. 


No.  QUESTION  ^T;'"  „^ol-,   umph.s'^-^ 


Wil- 
lix 


Wins- 
low 


1.  Mechanical  Construction. .. .       50 

2.  Mechanical  Action 50 

3.  Counting  Mechanism,  Relia- 

bility of  all  parts 100 

4.  Counters: 

(1)  Positiveness  of  action     100 

(2)  Firmness  in  position. . .     100 

(3)  Clinging  of  freezing  of 

parts 100 

(4)  Which  has  best  protec- 

tion against  fraudu- 
lent manipulation.  .  .        0 

(5)  Strength  and  delicacy 

as  to  all  parts  and 
entire  machine 50 

(6)  Preventive  action  that 

is,  will  permit  of 
voting  proper  num- 
ber of  candidates 
only 0 

(7)  Liability  to  get  out  of 

order  by  accident, 
design,  rust  or  other- 
wise        90 

792  (8)  Grouping  of  candidates 

to  arrange  for  on  any 

part  of  machine 100 

(9)  Party  lever — how  much 
more  difficult  will  it 
be  to  operate  on  an 
8  or  9-column  mach- 
ine with  70  keys — if 
stored  for  six  months 
or  a  year 100 

(10)  Fraudulent    manipula- 

tion which  machine 
would  be  less  liable 
thereto 25 

(11)  Simplicity  of  arranging 

and  preparing  for 
voting 100 

(12)  Group     voting    which 

machine  permits  of 
same  with  greatest 
ease  and  reliability. .       25 


100  80        100  50  95 

100  80        100         50  90 


100        100        100        100 


90 


100        100  90        100        100 

100        100        100        100        100 

100        100        100        100        100 


100  100  100  0  100 

100  95  100  50  100 

100  0  100  0  50 

100  75  100  75  75 

100  0  100  100  100 

100  90  90  100  90 

100  50  95  25  95 

100  100  100  100  100 

100  75  100  50  90 


Leutwiler  Report — Continued.  203 


u  s 

■NT  niTtT'OTTriM  Ameri-   Col-      Tri-     c!i'„j     Wil-     Wins- 

No.  QUESTION  ^^„     ^^^-^  ^,^p^    Stand-     ^^        ,^^^ 

(13)  Cumulative    vote    for 

Legislative  Candi- 
dates— Which  mach- 
ine shows  best 
method  of  counting, 
i.  e.,  one  vote  for 
three  candidates,  1| 
votes  for  two  can- 
didates, three  votes 
for  one  candidate, 
one  vote  for  one  can- 
didate and  two  votes 
for  another  candidate      25        100  95        100  90        100 

(14)  Grade  Machine — As  to 

capacity  for  arrange- 
ment for  cumulative 
voting  on  any  part 
of  machine 100        100        100        100        100        100 

(15)  Springs — Are  there  any 

used  on  machine 2  4  36  9  9  63 

times 
No.  of 
keys 
793  (16)   Grade— As  to  liability 

of  machine  to  get  out 

of  order  or  become 

injured      by      being 

hauled  to  and  from 

polling  places 100        100        100        100        100        100 

(17)  Separate  Report 

State  by  means  of  report  separate  from  this,  in  your  own  way, 
your  suggestions,  advice,  etc.;  also  any  points  that  deal  with 
the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  several  machines — that  is,  a 
resume  of  the  good  and  bad  points  of  each  machine. 

(18)  From  your  study  and  examination  of  the  several  voting  machines, 

are  they  in  your  opinion  sufficiently  perfected,  so  that  you 
would  advise  the  Board  to  purchase  any  one  of  them  at  this 
time. 
Average  Grade .      66        100         81.5      99         71        91.7 


204 

Report 

of  George 

0. 

Olson. 

794 

Rela- 

Amer- 

Colun 

I-   Tri- 

U.S. 

Wil- 

Wins- 

No 

.      QUESTION 

tive 
Wgt. 

ican 

bia 

umph 

Stand- 
ard 

lix 

low 

1. 

Simplicity  of  oper- 
ation before  vot- 

ing  

50 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

2. 

Simplicity  of  oper- 
ation    in     voting 

straight  ticket. . . 

50 

100 

100 

90 

90 

100 

90 

3. 

Simplicity  of  oper- 
ation    in    voting 

straight  ticket. . . 

100 

25 

100 

95 

100 

80 

90 

4. 

Ease    of   Manipula- 

tion  

50 

60 

100 

90 

95 

70 

90 

5. 

Accuracy  of  record- 

ing mechanism . . 

100 

100 

100 

100 

90 

100 

100 

6. 

Permanency   of   re- 

cords  

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

7. 

Ease    of    provision 
for    cumulative 

voting 

100 

25 

100 

95 

100 

80 

100 

8. 

Accuracy  of  plan  for 

group  voting 

100 

0 

100 

0 

100 

0 

90 

9. 

Character  of  design 

100 

60 

100 

85 

100 

60 

95 

10. 

Correct  selection  of 

material 

100 

85 

100 

80 

100 

60 

95 

11. 

Excellency  of  work- 

manship  

100 

95 

100 

75 

100 

75 

95 

12. 

Size  and  weight. .  .  . 

50 

100 

95 

95 

90 

95 

90 

13. 

Simplicity  of  voting 

restricted  ticket. 
.\verage  grade 

50 

100 

100 

100 

100 

- 

100 

68.5 

99.8 

82.6 

97.8 

73.8 

95.2 

795      Mr.  McEwEN.     The  next  is  the  report  of  March  10, 
1908,  of  Geo.  0.  Olson: 

"Chicago,  March  10,  1908. 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 

of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
Gentlemen  : 

At  your  request,  I  have  examined  the  several  voting 
naachines  installed  in  your  office  and  am  pleased  to  sub- 
mit the  following  reports. 

In  making  the  report  on  the  diagram,  I  have  left  Out 
three  of  the  machines,  namely  the  American  Vote  Kegis- 
ter,  Willix,  and  the  Triumph.  The  Triumph  and  the  Wil- 
lix  have  many  points  which  I  think  will  be  good  when 
fully  developed,  but  at  the  present  time  the  machines  are 
in  such  a  crude  and  unfinished  condition  that  I  cannot  see 
my  way  clear  to  make  a  report. 


Olson  Report — Continued.  205 

In  answering  Question  No.  18,  "From  your  Examina- 
tion and  Study  of  the  several  voting  machines,  are  they 
in  your  opinion  sufficiently  perfected  so  that  you  would 
advise  the  Board  to  purchase  any  one  of  them  at  this 
time!"  my  answer  is  "Yes,"  from  a  mechanical  stand- 
point only. 

If  there  is  any  other  questions  which  I  have  not  cov- 
ered in  my  reports,  I  would  be  pleased  to  come  to  your 
office  at  any  time  and  answer  them  to  the  best  of  my 
ability.    Thanking  you,  I  remain 

Yours  very  trulv, 

(Signed)   ^Gko.  0.  Olson." 

Winslow  Voting  Machine. 

The  machine  is  entirely  new  in  the  internal  working 
parts  and  is  very  practical,  but  the  face  of  the  machine 
is  practically  the  same  as  the  last  machine,  with  the  ex- 
ception that  the  keys  run  across  the  face  instead  of  up 
and  down,  which  is  a  verj^  great  improvement,  but  I  foundl 
that  in  voting,  especially  where  the  vote  is  split,  that  you 
could  not  readily  see  when  a  pin  was  out  or  in  without 
examining  very  closely,  and  I  found  also  that  the  voting 
plugs  were  not  always  positively  locked  in  position. 

The  cumulative  voting  device  or  attachment  for  Legis- 
lative candidates  is  practical  and  positive  and  accurate 
in  all  combinations,  but  is  not  adjustable  to  any  part  of 
the  machine. 

Grouping  is  easily  accomplished,  but  I  am  of  the  opin- 
ion that  the  screws  which  fasten  the  grouping  blocks  are 
not  positive. 

In  grouping  for  ten  county  commissioners,  and  voting 
the  Eepublican  column,  the  plugs  or  pins  will  not  always 

796  stay  in  the  voting  position. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson." 

"Columbia  Voting  Machine. 

797  This  machine  is  very  practical  in  every  way,  as  certain 
conditions  complained  of  in  my  last  report  have  been 
successfully  overcome.  The  Cumulative  voting  device  or 
attachment  for  Legislative  candidates  is  very  good,  being 
made  up  of  very  few  parts,  and  is  very  easily  adjusted 
to  any  part  of  the  machine,  and  in  voting  for  the  Legis- 
lators it  is  positive  and  accurate  in  all  combinations. 

Grouping  is  more  easily  accomplished  on  this  machine 


206  Olson  Report — Continued. 

on  account  of  the  accessibility  of  the  different  parts,  and 
it  is  impossible  to  vote  for  more  candidates  than  the  ma- 
chine is  grouped  for. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  weight  of  this  machine 
could  be  reduced  a  great  deal  without  impairing  the  effi- 
ciency in  the  least. 

I  wish  to  again  call  your  attention  to  the  lack  of  a  cus- 
todian lock  which  I  think  is  very  essential  and  can  be 
placed  on  this  machine  without  adding  any  additional 
weight. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olsox." 

"U.  S.  Standard  Voting  Machine. 

This  machine  is  a  very  practical  machine  in  every  way, 
and  certain  conditions  which  I  criticized  in  my  last  report 
have  been  successfully  overcome. 
798  The  cumulative  voting  device  or  attachment  for  legis- 
lative candidates  is  good,  but  is  not  as  simple  as  on  some 
of  the  other  machines,  as  it  is  composed  of  too  many  parts 
and  the  method  of  adjustment  on  the  horizontal  rods 
merely  adds  weight,  but  in  voting  for  the  Legislators  it  is 
positive  and  accurate  in  all  combinations. 

Grouping  is  easily  accomplished,  but  the  horizontal  rods 
mentioned  above  are  slightly  in  the  way.  But  it  is  im- 
possible to  vote  for  more  candidates  than  the  machine  is 
grouped  for. 

In  my  last  report,  I  called  special  attention  to  the  glass 
doors  to  be  opened  with  the  custodian  key,  but  upon  fur- 
ther thought  and  consideration,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that 
the  glass  doors  are  more  of  a  detriment  than  otherwise, 
as  they  are  very  liable  to  be  broken  in  shipment  from  the 
warehouse  to  the  polling  place,  and  it  is  my  opinion  that 
they  add  more  weight  than  security. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  weight  of  this  machine 
could  be  reduced  a  great  deal  without  impairing  the  effi- 
ciency in  the  least. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Otsonf." 

Mr.  McBwEN.    I  read  from  0-16,  the  report  on  the  vot- 
ing machines  by  DePuy  of  October  12,  1909,  the  Empire, 
the  Triumph,  the  Willix  and  the  Winslow. 
"Report  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the 

Results  of  Investigation  of  Voting  Machines. 

October  12,  1909. 


Report  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  207 

Empire  Machine. 
Construction. 

The  material,  workmanship,  and  general  design  are 
very  satisfactory.  The  working  parts,  so  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  get  at  them  for  examination,  are  made  of 
steel,  galvanized  or  coppered,  generally,  brass,  bronze, 
aluminum,  or  white  metal  composition,  and  I  think  there 
would  be  but  little  tendency  to  rusting.  A  few  bars,  pins, 
etc.,  are  of  plain  steel,  and  they  should  be  galvanized  or 
made  of  brass.  The  workmanship  is  excellent,  and  the 
parts  fit  well  together,  so  that,  for  the  most  part,  the 
action  is  positive  and  very  reliable." 

VOLUMEi  X. 

Tuesday,  July  29th,  1913. 
Afternoon  Session. 

HowABD  S.  Taylor: 

802  Cross-Examination  Resumed  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Mr.  McEwen  reads  from  Exhibits  10  to  23  offered  by 
him,  the  part  applying  to  the  Empire  Voting  Machine,  as 
follows : 

"Counters. 

The  counters  and  operating  mechanism  I  consider  very 
positive  and  durable.  The  parts  of  the  counters  proper 
are  comparatively  long,  and  are  therefore  not  so  liable 
to  be  broken  as  those  that  are  made  with  small  and  deli- 
cate parts.  The  turning  down  of  the  voting  key  moves 
the  operating  mechanism  in  such  a  manner  that  the  coun- 
ter cannot  fail  to  register,  and  unless  the  key  has  been 
turned  down  the  counter  cannot  move.  The  counters  are 
locked  at  all  times  and  can  only  be  moved  by  the  opera- 
tion of  the  machine  after  the  keys  have  been  turned  down 
by  the  voter,  or  when  the  operating  mechanism  is  dropped 
below  its  normal  position  by  turning  up  two  handles  in- 
side the  lower  rear  door  when  the  operating  handle  is 
locked,  as  is  necessary  when  setting  the  counters  to  zero. 
After  this  adjustment  is  made  the  counters  can  be  readily 


208  DePuy  Report — Contitmed. 

turned  in  either  direction  to  zero,  but  if  they  are  turned 
backward  they  will  move  until  all  the  wheels  are  at  zero, 
and  then  they  will  stop  positively,  which  is  a  great  con- 
venience in  setting. 

The  counters  are  held  securely  in  substantial  aluminum 
cases,  which  1511  the  back  of  the  machine  and  cover  the 
working  parts  of  the  key  spindles  and  restricting  strips, 
but  if  it  should  be  necessary  to  get  to  these  working  parts 
to  adjust  or  repair  the  machine,  these  cases  and  counters 
can  be  readily  removed  and  replaced  again. 

Individual  Restt'iction  and  Grouping  of  Candidates. 

The  restricting  strips  for  the  individual  keys  are  neatly 
made,  light  and  yet  strong,  arid  have  small  wedges  which 
cause  the  restriction.  These  wedges  slide  between  rollers, 
which  gives  very  little  friction,  and  the  grouping  of  can- 
didates can  be  accomplished  anywhere  on  the  machine 
by  removing  one  or  more  pins  passing  through  these 
rollers.  The  removal  of  a  pin  does  not  change  the  spacing 
of  the  rollers,  but  allows  the  wedges  to  be  pulled  up  in  a 
different  order.  No  adjustment  of  screws  or  insertions 
of  additional  wedges  is  necessary,  and  the  grouping  seems 
to  be  positive. 

Cumulative  Vote  Device. 

803  The  attachment  for  cumulative  voting  can  be  placed 
anywhere  on  the  machine,  and  as  it  is  used  only  to  pre- 
vent voting  in  more  than  one  at  a  time  of  the  cumulative 
groups,  the  actual  restricting  of  the  number  of  votes  is 
done  with  the  regular  wedges  and  rollers.  It  is  very 
simple,  and  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  operate  it,  en- 
tirely effective. 

804  As  the  device  is  shown  it  allows  of  arranging  the  candi- 
dates in  four  groups  of  three  keys  each,  and  two,  three, 
or  four  of  these  groups  can  be  used  as  desired.  The 
ticket  now  placed  on  the  machine  uses  but  three  of  these 
groups.  Two  of  them  operate  together  on  the  restricting 
device  and  allow  three  votes  for  either  of  the  two  candi- 
dates or  two  for  either  one  of  them  and  one  for  the  other. 
The  other  group  operate^  independently  and  allows  li 
votes  for  each  of  two  candidates,  leaving  one  key  a  blank. 
This  group  on  the  device  should  be  arranged  so  that  either 
two  or  three  keys  could  be  controlled  by  it,  and  then  if 
but  two  candidates  are  on  the  ticket,  there  need  be  no 


DePuy  Report — Continued.  209 

blank  key  left.  The  device  does  not  permit  of  voting  1^ 
votes  each  for  two  candidates  by  using  a  single  key,  but 
it  could  be  made  to  do  so  by  a  slight  modification. 

Fraudident  Manipulation. 

As  the  machine  now  stands,  it  is  possible  to  vote  a 
straight  ticket  of  any  party  with  the  straight  ticket  key, 
and  at  the  same  time  vote  a  straight  or  split  ticket  with 
the  regular  candidate  keys  anywhere  on  the  machine.    It 

805  is  done  by  first  pushing  down  the  release  lever,  which 
allows  individual  candidate  voting,  then  returning  this 
lever  and  holding  it  up  and  at  the  same  time  pulling 
down  and  gently  shaking  a  straight  ticket  key.  Pulling 
down  the  individual  key  release  lever  pulls  up  a  restrict- 
ing wedge  in  the  straight  party  group,  which  locks  the 
straight  party  wedges  all  out  and  at  the  same  time  oper- 
ates a  slide  which  turns  up  all  the  individual  restricting 
clips  which  hold  down  the  wedge  strips  connected  with 
the  individual  keys.  When  the  release  lever  is  held  up 
and  the  straight  party  ticket  key  shaken,  the  restricting 
wedge  pulled  up  by  the  release  lever  gradually  works 
down  and  drops  into  its  normal  position,  but  the  slide 
controlling  the  rod  carrying  the  individual  restricting 
clips  does  not  return  to  its  normal  position  by  the  shaking 
process,  and  so  the  restricting  devices  are  all  off,  and 
the  machine  is  free  to  be  voted  in  both  ways  at  the  same 
time.  The  reason  the  wedge  strip  operated  by  the  re- 
lease lever  drops  down  while  the  restriction  slide  stays 
up  is  that  the  hole  in  the  bar  that  pulls  the  slide  up  is  a 
slot,  and  after  the  slide  is  up  the  pin  on  the  release  lever 
is  free  to  go  down  without  moving  the  slide.  If  this  slot 
were  omitted  the  shaking  of  the  machine  could  not  return 
the  restricting  wedge,  and  the  machine  could  not  be  made 

806  to  vote  double.  This  slot  is  put  in  this  strip  to  allow  the 
restricting  slide  to  remain  up  when  the  machine  is  used 
in  a  primary  election,  but  this  is  unnecessary,  for  the  ma- 
chine works  just  as  well,  when  arranged  for  primary  vot- 
ing, with  this  slide  w'orking  in  the  regular  way  and  the 
restricting  clips  turned  up  individually.  This  restricting 
slide  has  another  attachment,  a  little  swinging  arm 
marked  'B,'  by  which  it  may  be  disconnected  entirely  in 
a  primary  election  and  so  take  off  all  the  restricting  clips, 
but  it  is  unnecessarj',  as  has  just  been  shown,  to  remove 
the  restriction  in  this  way,  and  if  during  a  regular  elec- 


210  DePuy  Report — Continued. 

tion  this  slide  should  happen  to  be  left  disconnected  any- 
one could  vote  a  straight  ticket  in  both  ways,  or  they 
could  vote  a  straight  and  a  split  ticket  at  the  same  time 
without  any  extra  manipulation. 

Restricted  Voters  Can  Vote  Straight  Ticket. 

Another  possibility  of  error  exists  in  the  machine  whicli 
is  not  necessary  and  can  be  very  easily  avoided.  The  rod 
controlled  by  the  restricting  lever  on  the  end  of  the  ma- 
chine does  not  carry  a  clip  to  restrict  the  straight  party 
vote.  If  a  clip  were  placed  on  this  rod  (there  is  a  place 
for  it)  over  the  straight  party  wedge  strips,  those  who 
are  expected  to  vote  for  the  University  Trustees  only 
could  not  vote  a  straight  party  ticket,  as  they  can  now. 

Priinary  Voting  Device. 

The  mechanism  for  arranging  the  machine  for  primary 
voting  is  simple  and  easy  to  adjust  and  operate.  If  neces- 
sary, several  of  the  horizontal  bars  can  be  arranged  to 
be  grouped  together  to  serve  for  one  party,  and  yet  all 
are  controlled  by  the  primary  lever  as  easily  as  if  only 
one  bar  for  a  party  were  used. 

807  Positive  Action. 

The  swinging  arm  'B'  and  the  slot  in  the  vertical  bar 
which  operates  the  restricting  slide  are  evidently  intended 
to  throw  the  slide  out  of  action  when  using  the  machine  in 
a  primary  election,  but  they  are  not  necessary,  and  if 
they  were  left  off  I  think  the  machine  would  be  positive 
and  reliable  in  its  action.  All  parts  are  well  proportioned 
and  accurately  made.  The  movements  of  the  parts  are 
controlled  by  cams  or  levers,  but  few  springs  are  used, 
and  they  are  in  places  where  they  are  not  likely  to  give 
trouble. 

Party  Bars. 

Party  bars  are  used  only  for  restricting  purposes  in 
primary  elections,  and  if  they  were  used  with  a  party 
lever  to  make  all  the  keys  move  when  voting  a  straight 
ticket,  it  would  be  necessary  to  redesign  the  whole  mech- 
anism and  make  it  more  complicated. 


DePuy  Report — Continued.  211 

Tbiumph  Machine. 

Constrv/:tion. 

The  materials  used  in  this  machine  are  largely  steel 

808  and  brass.  Most  of  the  steel  is  either  enamelled  or  gal- 
vanized, but  some  pieces  are  left  uncoated,  and  they  would 
be  likely  to  rust.  The  machine  is  put  together  in  such  a 
way  that  many  of  the  parts  are  difficult  to  get  at  for  ad- 
justment or  repairs. 

Cou/nters. 

The  regular  'Veeder'  counters  are  used,  but  they  are 
operated  by  a  special  disc  carrying  a  crank  pin  engaged 
by  a  lever  turned  down  upon  the  pin  by  the  voting  key. 
These  crank  discs  and  pins  have  a  rather  loose  connec- 
tion, and  when  the  levers  turn  down,  the  pins  are  not 
always  in  just  the  right  position  for  them  to  go  down  all 
the  way,  and  this  might  cause  a  counter  to  fail  to  regis- 
ter, although  I  have  never  found  that  to  be  the  case,  even 
when  the  pins  were  not  properly  engaged. 

The  method  of  setting  the  counters  seems  cumbersome, 
and  the  rack  and  gears  which  have  to  be  disengaged  need 
some  indicating  marks  or  stops  for  engaging  them  again. 
In  setting  the  counters  two  men  are  required,  and  very 
careful  watch  has  to  be  kept  in  order  to  stop  the  counters 
at  just  the  right  point.  When  the  doors  are  open  to  read 
the  counters,  the  counters  are  locked  against  movement, 
unless  disconnected  for  resetting.  The  counters  are 
small,  and  their  parts  are  quite  delicate,  but  they  prob- 
ably are  strong  enough  for  their  work. 

809  Individual  Restriction  cmd  Grouping  of  Candidates. 

The  device  for  restricting  the  individual  voting  keys, 
when  properly  adjusted,  works  very  well,  but  when  a 
change  is  made  to  a  group,  then  some  adjustment  has  to 
be  made,  and  it  is  diffijcult  to  tell  just  which  one  of  the 
screws  in  the  group  ought  to  be  turned  to  keep  the  strips 
alike.  A  change  in  the  adjustment  of  the  individual  keys 
affects  the  ease  of  voting  in  a  large  group.  When  the 
adjustment  is  right  only  the  proper  number  can  be  voted 
in  a  group,  but  I  think  this  adjustment  will  change  slightly 
in  the  process  of  voting  during  an  election. 


k 


212  DePuy  Report — Continued. 

Cumulative  Vote  Device. 

The  device  for  cumulative  voting  allows  voting  the  leg- 
islative ticket  in  five  ways,  viz. :  1^  votes  for  each  of  two 
with  one  key;  3  votes  for  one  with  but  one  key;  1|  votes 
for  each,  two  keys  to  be  used;  2  votes  for  one  candidate 
and  one  for  another,  two  keys  to  be  used ;  1  vote  for  each 
of  three  candidates,  three  keys  to  be  used.  This  device 
discards  the  regular  restriction,  and  the  different  com- 
binations are  obtained  by  special  wedges  in  the  cumula-. 
five  attachment.  There  is  no  way  to  adjust  these  wedges, 
and  the  strips  connecting  them  to  the  key  strip  are  not 
stiff  enough  to  hold  them  in  proper  connection.  After  the 
machine  was  put  in  adjustment  by  its  representatives  I 
could  vote  without  much  difficulty  in  all  of  the  last  four 
810  of  these  groups,  making  a  total  of  7^  votes,  all  for  one  or 
for  different  candidates,  all  in  one  party  or  any  parties. 

Primary  Device. 

The  primary  restricting  device  seems  to  be  satisfac- 
tory, but  if  more  than  one  bar  is  to  be  used  for  a  party  the 
election  judge  would  have  to  keep  careful  watch  to  see 
that  the  restriction  slides  were  properly  set. 

Positive  Action. 

After  the  last  key  has  been  turned  in  a  group  where 
the  adjustment  is  made  close  to  restrict  to  the  proper 
number  of  votes,  I  find  that  sometimes  the  restricting 
wedge  would  not  drop  to  its  normal  position  when  a  key 
was  turned  back,  thus  making  it  impossible  to  change 
the  vote  if  desired. 

Party  Bars. 

This  machine  has  a  bar  and  lever  for  each  party,  so 
that  the  straight  ticket  can  be  voted  by  simply  pulling 
this  lever,  and  the  keys  of  all  the  candidates  voted  for 
are  moved  by  the  operation.  After  the  party  lever  is 
pulled  the  vote  can  be  'scratched'  or  'split'  as  much  as 
desired.  The  connection  between  the  individual  keys  and 
party  bar  is  very  easily  made. 


DePuy  Report — Continued.  213 

811  WiLjjx  Machine. 

Design  and  Construction. 

The  design  and  execution  of  this  machine  are  in  many 
respects  crude  and  unsatisfactory,  so  that  it  can  not  be 
considered  as  a  salable  machine  at  the  present  time. 

Handles  and  Counters. 

The  handles  or  voting  keys  are  long  and  weak,  making 
them  very  liable  to  injury.  A  different  device  would  have 
to  be  used  in  a  practical  machine.  The  counters  are  the 
'Veeder,'  and  have  a  simple  star- wheel  for  turning  them. 
There  is  no  device  for  locking  them  in  position,  and  the 
hooks  and  cams  by  which  the  wheels  are  turned  are  un- 
substantial. 

Restricting  Device. 

The  device  for  restricting  the  number  of  votes  is  en- 
tirely different  from  any  of  the  other  machines,  and 
seems  to  be  entirely  satisfactory  in  principle,  but  sev- 
eral details  are  poorly  worked  out. 

This  same  statement  applies  to  the  machine  as  a  whole, 
and  I  will  not  note  individual  items  further. 

WiNSLOw  Machine. 

Design  and  Construction. 

This  machine  is  poor  in  design,  construction,  and  oper- 

812  ation.  I  do  not  find  any  redeeming  features.  The  party 
levers,  with  one  exception,  cannot  be  operated,  the  in- 
dividual keys  pull  too  hard,  and  the  party  bars  are  not 
stiff  enough,  the  restricting  wedges  and  supporting 
strips  are  too  heavy  and  clumsy,  the  bell-cranks  operat- 
ing them  are  poorly  supported  and  connected.  The 
mechanism  for  returning  the  voting  keys  has  too  much 
back  lash,  and  the  keys  do  not  come  back  to  their  proper 
place.  The  handles  of  the  voting  keys  are  long  and 
slender  and  liable  to  be  bent,  which  would  prevent  their 
operation.  The  screws  which  adjust  the  restriction 
wedges  are  very  difficult  to  adjust  properly,  and  the  cumu- 
lative vote  restricting  device  frequently  does  not  return 
after  it  has  been  raised.  The  number  that  can  be  voted 
in  a  group  is  very  uncertain  and  depends  on  the  order  in 
which  the  keys  are  operated. 


214  DePuy  Report — Continued. 

Counters. 

The  counters  are  unreliable  in  their  action,  being  moved 
and  held  by  springs,  which  do  not  always  work.  The 
device  used  for  setting  counters  to  zero  has  to  be  placed 
in  a  position  which  makes  it  difficult  to  read  the  counters, 
and  when  the  machine  is  adjusted  for  voting  it  is  then 
sometimes  possible  to  read  the  counters  from  the  front 
of  the  machine. 

813  As  shown  by  this  report,  not  one  of  the  machines  ex- 
hibited is  satisfactory  in  its  present  condition,  but  if 
the  changes  suggested  were  made,  the  Empire  machine 
would  be  reliable  and  positive  in  its  action.  The  Triumph 
also  no  doubt  can  be  made  to  vote  more  positively,  but 
considerable  work  would  have  to  be  done  before  they 
eliminate  all  its  faults.  This  machine  has  the  party  bars 
and  levers,  which  I  think  makes  the  proper  way  of  voting 
the  straight  ticket,  but  I  do  not  see  how  they  could  be 
applied  to  the  Empire  machine  without  adding  very  much 
to  the  complication  of  the  mechanism. 

The  cumulative  voting  attachment  of  the  Triumph  ma- 
chine provides  for  voting  in  all  the  desired  ways,  while 
the  Empire  does  not,  but  the  Triumph  attachment  is  un- 
reliable, and  the  Empire  is  positive.  Another  group 
could  be  added,  if  desired,  to  the  Empire  device  without 
difficulty. 

While  the  Empire  machine  can,  with  a  very  little  chang- 
ing, be  made  to  do  all  it  claims  to  do,  I  am  not  sure  that 
it  would  be  best  for  the  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers to  purchase  them  at  the  present  time.  The  same 
trouble  exists  now  that  was  present  two  years  ago,  al- 
though not  to  so  great  an  extent.  The  machines  are 
large  and  heavy,  difficult  to  handle,  and  awkward  to  store. 

814  I  think  the  Empire  machine  will  stand  the  moving  very 
well  and  will  not  be  liable  to  get  out  of  adjustment,  but 
whether  it  is  wise  for, the  Board  to  incur  the  expense  and 
trouble  that  will  come  with  these  machines  I  do  not  feel 
competent  to  say. 

BespectfuUv  submitted, 

(Signed)     C.  E.  DePuy." 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  have  now  the  report,  Exhibit  "0-17," 
of  Geo.  0.  Olson,  dated  October  11th,  1909  (reading) : 


Report  of  George  0.  Olson.  215 

Chicago,   Oct.   llth,  1909. 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 

of  City  of  Chicago. 
GentXiEMen  : 

815  At  your  request,  I  have  examined  the  several  voting 
machines  installed  in  your  office,  and  beg  to  submit  the  fol- 
lowing reports: 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  voting  machines  have  not  been 
perfected  to  such  a  degree  that  they  would  be  useful  in 
any  large  city.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  art  to-day  as 
expressed  in  these  machines  is  in  such  a  condition  that 
we  may  look  for  improvements  very  shortly  that  will  far 
surpass  anything  which  has  so  far  been  shown. 

And  for  reasons  given  above  and  in  my  reports,  my  an- 
swer to  questions  #18  and  #19  is  "No."    ' 
Yours  very  truly. 

Signed.     Geo.  0.  Olson. 

Triumph  Voting  Machine. 

Ballot  lock  is  good  with  the  exception  that  the  locking 
bar  on  the  right  hand  end  should  be  secured  in  the  center 
as  the  way  it  is  it  can  easily  be  pried  off. 

Restricting  latches  have  been  provided  for  primary 
elections  for  all  the  parties,  but  I  found  three  of  the- 
latches  which  I  could  not  move.     Alignment  of  keys  good. 

816  Independent  voting  device  works  good.  Curtains  should 
be  made  of  some  opaque  material. 

October  11th,  1909. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson. 

Empire  Voting  Machine. 

The  material  used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine 
could  not  in  my  opinion  be  improved  on,  and  the  outside 
finish  is  fine.  The  workmanship  is  first  class.  I  wish 
to  call  especial  attention  to  the  high  grade  of  work 
on  the  counters  and  counter  holders.  It  is  in  my  opin- 
ion very  high  grade  work. 

The  straight  party  vote  is  controlled  by  one  pointer 
and  the  voter  cannot  tell  from  the  face  of  the  machine 
what  candidates  he  has  voted  for.  This  is  a  very  simple 
construction  from  the  manufacturers  point  of  view,  but 
I  think  very  unsatisfactory  for  the  voter.     I  called  special 


216  Olson  Report — Continued. 

attention  to  this  (I  call  it  a  defect)  in  my  report  of 
Nov.  ISth,  1907,  on  the  Columbia  Voting  Machine. 

The  cumulative  voting  device  is  very  good  and  can 
he  arranged  very  easily  on  any  part  of  this  machine. 

The  grouping  can  also  be  applied  to  any  part  by  sim- 
ply pulling  out  a  pin  or  putting  one  in  and  is  very  handy, 
hut  there  is  no  adjustment  for  wear  in  the  limited  space 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Triumph,  and  it  is  a  question  if 
it  is  necessary.  I  consider  that  both  the  cumulative  and 
grouping  devices  are  very  good  and  easily  handled. 

817  I  found  two  defects  in  the  voting  levers  which  I  con- 
sider very  serious.  The  voter  can  vote  the  straight  ticket 
and  then  by  moving  the  release  lever  he  can  vote  the 
straight  again,  and  also  vote  for  all  the  rest  of  the  candi- 
dates separately  and  register  two  votes  for  every  candi- 
dates. 

The  other  defect  was  in  the  restricted  vote  as  in  the 
case  of  the  University  Trustees.  The  restricting  lever 
which  the  judges  are  supposed  to  move  does  not  do  the 
work  it  is  designed  for,  as  it  does  not  restrict  the  straight 
party  lever.  The  restricted  voter  must  first  pull  the  re- 
leasing lever  before  she  can  vote  for  the  trustees  or  she 
can  vote  the  straight  ticket. 

Empire  Votijtg  Machine. 

The  following  extract  from  the  literature  on  this  ma- 
chine speaks  for  itself.  "It  is  important  that  the  ma- 
chine should  stand  on  a  solid  level  floor.  (This  would  be 
hard  to  find  in  a  great  many  of  the  precincts.)  If  it  is 
found  that  either  of  the  doors  bind  when  they  are  opened 
or  closed  it  is  because  the  floor  is  uneven.  Shifting  the 
position  of  the  machine  to  give  it  a  level  footing  or  rais- 
ing one  of  the  legs  slightly  with  a  block  so  that  it  will 
stand  level  will  overcome  the  dififieulty." 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  fault  would  not  be  in  the 
floor,  but  in  the  construction  of  the  lower  part  or  legs  of 
this  machine.  The  judges  and  clerks  are  not  as  a  rule 
machinery  movers,  and  that  is  what  they  ought  to  be  to 
handle  a  machine  that  weighs  800  pounds,  and  put  it  upon 
the  legs.      The  danger  of  accident  would  be  very  great. 

818  I  would  not  accept  any  machine  that  was  constructed 
along  these  lines.  The  machine  should  be  self-contained 
and  have  a  raising  and  lowering  device  similar  to  the 


Olson  Report — Continued.  217 

other  machine  so  that  they  could  not  be  affected  by  an 
unlevel  floor. 

Outside  of  the  defect  in  construction  which  I  have  men- 
tioned in  the  foregoing,  it  is  first  class.  The  ballot  lock 
is  simple  and  effective,  but  the  bar  at  the  right  end  which 
holds  the  strips  into  place,  should  have  a  key  lock.  The 
resetting  device  on  this  machine  is  to  be  commended  for 
its  simplicity. 

Alignment  of  keys  good. 

This  machine  is  very  secure  against  manipulation,  as 
the  counters  are  locked  and  cannot  be  moved  without 
opening  the  lower  door,  and  as  I  understand  the  keys 
to  this  door  are  held  by  the  custodian.  A  very  effec- 
tive device  has  been  provided  for  primary  elections  and  in 
our  trial  worked  perfectly.  Independent  voting  device 
works  good. 

Curtains  should  be  made  of  some  opaque  material. 

October  11th,  1909. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson. 

Triumph  Voting  Machine. 

The  material  used  in  this  machine  is  good,  but  the  fin- 
ish on  the  outside  is  not  up  to  standard.  Workman- 
ship only  fair. 

Madiine  is  supplied  with  voting  levers,  which,  when 
pulled  votes  the  straight  party  ticket,  and  throws  down 
819  all  the  keys  at  once  allowing  the  voter  to  see  that  all 
the  keys  have  been  voted. 

The  cumulative  device  can  be  applied  to  any  part  of 
the  machine,  but  is  not  easily  handled.  It  is  composed  of 
a  great  many  parts.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  it  could 
be  made  to  work  all  right  if  properly  made  and  adjusted, 
but  it  would  require  extreme  accuracy. 

The  way  it  is  made  at  the  present  time,  I  find  it  de- 
fective and  you  cannot  vote  for  the  legislative  candidate 
properly.     The  voter  can  vote  4^  votes  for  the  candidates. 

Grouping  on  this  machine  is  easily  accomplished  and 
can  be  adjusted  on  any  part  of  the  machine  by  pulling  out 
a  small  strap  or  pushing  one  in.  An  adjustment  has 
been  provided  to  take  up  any  wear  in  the  limited  space. 

Restricted  voters'  device  is  good  and  secure  and  works 
pei'fectly.      The  operating  lever  works  very  hard,  and 


218  Olson  Report — Continued. 

rough,  due  to  a  defect  in  the  design  of  main  rack.  I 
would  suggest  a  roller  bearing  for  this  part. 

The  counters  are  too  small  and  lack  rigidity,  and  are 
not  positively  locked  when  the  doors  are  opened.  They 
are  not  easily  manipulated,  but  they  are  not  perfectly 
secure  as  in  the  case  of  the  Empire,  public  counter  is  hard 
to  get  at  to  set. 

Besetting  on  this  machine  is  very  slow  and  it  would 
take  two  men  at  least  to  reset  these  counters.  The  rais- 
ing and  lowering  device  is  good,  and  the  machine  is  on 
wheels  which  makes  it  easy  to  handle  and  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  it  requires  a  solid  level  floor  to  stand  on. 

820  WiNSLow  Voting  Machine. 

The  material  used  in  the  construction  of  this  machine 
is  good  and  the  outride  finish  is  first  class.  Workman- 
ship is  only  fair.  The  straight  party  levers  do  not  work 
properly,  due,  as  I  understand  to  lack  of  time  to  adjust 
them  properly. 

The  cumulative  voting  device  is  first  class  and  can  be 
applied  to  any  part  of  the  machine,  but  it  is  not  easily 
applied. 

Grouping  can  be  accomplished  with  difficulty. 

Restricted  voters'  device  has  not  been  finished  on  this 
machine,  but  the  bar  provided  for  that  purpose  should 
have  a  center  support.  Counters  cannot  be  condemned 
too  severely,  as  they  are  controlled  by  springs  and  the 
method  of  applying  them  is  very  bad.  They  are  not  posi- 
tively locked,  but  they  cannot  be  manipulated  until  the 
front  plate  is  taken  off.  It  is  not  necessary  to  take  this 
plate  off  to  see  the  counters. 

Resetting  device  is  very  slow  and  difficult  to  handle. 
Lock  nuts  should  be  provided  on  all  screws  in  the  bell- 
cranks. 

Alignment  of  Keys  Poor. 

The  voting  keys  are  not  positively  locked,  and  they 
often  fall  back  to  non-voting  position.  A  spring  has 
been  provided  to  hold  them  in  place,  but  it  is  very  liable 
to  get  out  of  order. 

This  machine  is  in  such  an  unfinished  condition  that  it 
was  impossible  to  make  a  practical  test. 

October  11th,  1909. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson. 


Report  of  0.  A.  Leutwiler.  219 

WiLUx  Voting  Machine. 

821  The  material  used  in  this  machine  is  good,  but  all  the 
parts  are  in  such  a  rough  and  unfinished  condition  that 
it  is  almost  impossible  to  judge  what  the  finished  machine 
will  look  like. 

There  are  some  very  good  ideas  on  this  machine  and 
I  am  of  the  opinion  that  when  fully  developed  will  prove 
of  great  value.  I  refer  especially  to  the  grouping  de- 
vice which  is  an  entirely  new  principle  on  voting  ma- 
chines. Even  in  the  crude  condition  it  is  at  the  present 
time,  it  works  perfectly,  but  the  springs  which  control 
the  segment  gears  are  absolutely  worthless  as  they  would 
never  hold  their  shape. 

The  cumulative  device  can  be  applied  to  any  part  of 
the  machine  but  does  not  at  the  present  time  register  the 
proper  vote.  Keys  are  entirely  too  weak  and  are  easily 
bent. 

Counters  and  method  of  turning  them  are  very  weak 
and  unsecure  and  can  be  manipulated  easily  when  the 
doors  are  open.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  manufacturer 
of  this  machine  ever  expected  to  get  any  credit  for  this 
part  of  their  machine. 

October  11th,  1909. 

(Signed)     Geo.  0.  Olson. 

-Report  on  Voting  Machines — Olson,  Oct.  11,  1909. 

Willix, 
Winslow, 
Triumph, 
Empire, 

Mr.  McEwEN.     I  will  now  read  from  Exhibit  "0-18," 

Prof.  Leutwiler 's  report,  dated  October  13,  1909. 

822  "Urbana,  Illinois,  October  15,  1909. 
The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of 

Chicago,  Illitipis. 
Gentlemen  : 

Enclosed  find  my  report  on  the  examination  of  four 
voting  machines  for  the  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Trusting  that  the  report  will  give  you  the  informa- 
tion you  desired,  I  am. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     0.  A.  Leutwiler, 
Assistant  Professor  of  Machine  Design. 


220  Leutiviler  Report — Contimied. 

Report  on  the  examination  of  four  voting  machines  for 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, Illinois. 
Approved 

0.  A.  Letjtwileb, 

Assistant  Professor  of  Machine  Design, 
University  of  Illinois. 
Urbana,  Illinois,  October  15,  1909. 

Ukbana,  Ilijnois,  October  15,  1909. 

823  The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of 

Chicago,  Illinois. 
Gentlemen  : 

In  accordance  with  your  request  I  have  examined  the 
four  voting  machines  named  below  and  I  have  the  honor 
to  present  the  following  report : 

Names  of  Machines. 

The  following  machines  were  examined : 

1.  Empire. 

2.  Triumph. 

3.  Willix. 

4.  Winslow. 

Basis  of  Examination. 

The  opinions  expressed  in  this  report  are  based  on 
a  series  of  grades  exhibited  in  tables  forming  an  appen- 
dix to  this  report.  The  first  of  these  tables  contains  a 
series  of  questions  referred  to  me  by  The  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners,  and  the  second  contains  a  series 
of  questions  suggested  by  the  writer,  which  influence  to 
a  certain  degree  his  final  decision  as  to  the  rank  of  these 
machines. 

Basis  of  Grading. 

The  grades  in  these  tables  are  arrived  at  as  follows: 
The  machine  that  seemed  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of 
the  question  under  consideration  in  the  best  manner  was 
marked  100.  The  other  machines  were  then  graded  by 
comparing  them  with  the  one  selected  as  the  ideal. 

824  The  average  grade  given  at  the  bottom  of  Table  No.  1 
is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  each  question  is  of 
equal  weight.  Probably  it  might  have  been  well  to  as- 
sign weights  to  the  various  questions  as  some    are    of 


Leiitwiler  Report — Continued.  221 

more  importance  than  others.     This  was  attempted  in 
Table  No.  2  as  is  indicated  in  the  second  column. 

General  Discussion. 

In  order  to  arrive  at  correct  conclusions  in  the  exam- 
ination of  these  voting  machines  the  following  funda- 
mental principles  were  given  serious  consideration. 

I.  Design. 

A  voting  machine  must  be  so  designed  that  any  one 
unfamiliar  with  mechanical  devices  is  capable  of  oper- 
ating it  easily  and  at  the  same  time  correctly.  Prob- 
ably the  most  important  points  in  the  design  of  these 
machines  is  that  which  absolutely  prevents  the  fraudu- 
lent manipulation  of  the  machine  not  only  by  the  voter, 
but  by  the  judges  as  well.  The  question  of  what  ma- 
terial to  select  for  each  part  is  another  important  point 
and  is  considered  by  the  writer  as  a  part  of  the  design. 
The  size  and  weight  of  a  machine  must  also  be  consid- 
ered, as  a  bulky  and  heavy  machine  increases  the  stor- 
age and  carting  charges  and  at  the  same  time  the  polling 
places  must  be  so  selected  that  the  machine  may  easily 
be  installed.  The  ease  with  which  a  machine  in  a  stor- 
age house  or  polling  place  may  be  handled  is  another  item 
not  to  be  overlooked.  For  example  a  machine  on  wheels 
is  by  far  more  convenient  than  one  having  removable 
825  legs.  A  voting  machine  which  is  very  complicated  re- 
quires more  skilled  men  to  prepare  it  for  voting  and  to 
maintain  it  in  proper  working  order.  Furthennore,  all 
parts  of  the  machine  should  be  accessible  for  inspection. 

II.  Construction. 

By  construction  the  writer  has  in  mind  the  character 
of  workmanship  employed  in  the  making  of  the  machine. 
Many  well  designed  machines  have  turned  out  to  be  fail- 
ures due  to  faulty  construction.  In  a  votjng  machine  it 
is  absolutely  essential  to  have  good  construction  as  that 
prolongs  its  life  considerably,  and  keeps  down  the  repair 
charges. 


222  Leutwiler  Report — Continued. 

Application  of  these  Peinciples  to  the  Machines  Ex- 
amined.   . 

(1)     Empire  Voting  Machine. 

The  general  design  of  this  machine  is  probably  the 
best  of  any  machine  the  writer  examined.  This  machine 
possesses  the  following  good  points:  (a)  the  operations 
required  for  voting  a  straight  ticket  are  very  simple  and 
easy  to  perform,  (b)  For  voting  a  split  ticket  the.  op- 
erations are  simple,  and  in  case  a  mistake  is  made  or  one 
wishes  to  change,  it  may  be  done  very  readily,  (c) 
The  operations  performed  by  the  'Judge  of  Election' 
in  permitting  a  'restricted  voter'  to  vote  are  simple,  but 
at  the  time  this  machine  was  examined  it  was  not  prop- 
erly set  up,  in  that  a  'restricted  voter'  could  not  vote  for 
,826  the  'University  Trustee  to  fill  vacancy'  which  should 
have  been  possible,  (d)  The  operations  performed  by 
the  judge  during  a  'primary'  are  simple,  but  the  ma- 
chine was  not  set  up  properly  for  primary  voting  when 
the  writer  examined  it.  (e)  The  grouping  of  candidates 
could  be  done  on  any  part  of  the  machine,  (f)  The 
plan  used  for  group  voting  or  the  so-called  'interlock- 
ing device'  is  accurate,  likewise  the  device  for  cumula- 
tive voting,  (g)  The  recording  mechanism  and  coun- 
ters work  very  satisfactorily  and  are  well  designed,  (h) 
The  selection  of  the  material  is  excellent,  also  the  work^ 
manship  is  of  a  very  high  grade,  (i)  The  machine  is 
amply  protected  against  fraudulent  manipulation  by  the 
judges  in  that  it  is  locked  by  several  separate  locks  and 
keys,  thus  permitting  the  keys  to  be  divided  between  the 
judges.  This  means  that  at  least  two  parties  are  repre- 
sented when  the  machine  is  being  prepared  for  voting. 
The  same  remarks  apply,  when  the  polls  are  closed  and 
the  count  is  being  taken  off  the  machine. 

The  machine  has  the  following  defects :  (a)  The  ma- 
chine is  fairly  large  and  is  supported  on  legs,  thus  re- 
quiring dismantling  when  preparing  it  for  voting  and 
storage.  To  do  this  requires  at  least  three  strong  men 
and  generally  four,  (b)  The  greatest  defect  is  that  the 
machine  permits  of  casting  an  illegal  vote.  This  may  be 
done  as  follows :  Vote  a  straight  ticket  first,  next  .turn 
the  straight  party  knob  back  and  lower  the  release  lever 
as  if  voting  a  split  ticket.  Then  raise  by  means  of  a 
quick  jerk  the  release  lever  and  again  vote  by  means  of 


Leutwiler  Report — Continued.  223 

the  straight  party  key;  next  turn  down  the  keys  of  all 
other  candidates  you  wish  to  vote  for.  By  this  line  of 
procedure  I  was  able  to  cast  votes  for  any  party  or  split 
it  up  as  I  saw  fit.  This  point  indicates  a  serious  defect 
somewhere  in  the  design  of  the  interlocking  device  as 
used  on  the  straight  party  column. 

(2)     Triumph  Voting  Machine. 

The  Triumph  machine  possesses  the  following  good 
points:  (a)  The  machine  being  mounted  on  wheels  is 
readily  moved  about  and  prepared  for  voting.  Less  men 
are  required  in  handling  this  machine,  (b)  The  oper- 
ations required  for  voting  a  straight  ticket  are  very 
simple  and  easily  performed,  (c)  The  operations  re- 
quired for  voting  a  split  ticket  are  simple.  A  mistake 
made  in  voting  may  be  corrected  very  readily,  (d)  The 
operations  perfonned  by  the  judge  in  permitting  a  're- 
stricted voter'  to  vote  are  simple,  but  as  in  the  Empire 

827  machine,  this  machine  was  not  set  up  to  permit  a  voter 
to  cast  a  vote  for  the  'University  Trustee  to  fill  va- 
cancy.' (e)  The  machine  is  easily  prepared  for  pri- 
mary voting,  (f)  The  grouping  of  candidates  may  be 
done  on  any  part  of  the  machine,  (g)  The  recording 
mechanism  and  counters  work  satisfactorily,  but  in  set- 
ting them  back  to  zero  in  getting  the  machine  ready  for 
an  election  it  takes  two  men  to  do  it  properly,  (h)  The 
selection  of  the  material  is  fair  also  the  workmanship, 

828  The  machine  has  the  following  defects:  (a)  The  de- 
vice used  for  cumulative  voting  is  defective,  as  I  was* 
able  to  cast  an  illegal  vote  as  the  following  will  show : 

First  Combination :  For  G  25  I  cast  one  vote.  For  E 
25  or  26  I  cast  one  vote.  For  B  23  I  east  two  votes. 
Total  vote  cast  is  four. 

Second  Combination:  For  A  15  I  cast  3  votes  (party). 
For  A  20  I  cast  1^  votes.    Total  vote  cast  is  4|  votes. 

Third  Combination :  For  A  15  I  cast  3  votes.  For  C 
15  I  cast  3  votes.    Total  vote  cast  is  6. 

Fourth  Combination:  For  A  15  I  cast  3  votes.  For 
A  20  1  cast  1^  votes.  For  A  23  I  cast  2  votes.  For  A  or 
D  25  I  cast  1  vote.  Total  votes  cast  is  7i  votes. 
828  (b)  During  a  primary  election  a  dishonest  judge  may 
allow  a  voter  to  vote  for  two  or  more  parties  by  pushing 
in  the  corresponding  number  of  'Primary  Hooks'  in  the 
back  of  the  machine.    The  machine  in  my  mind  should  be 


224  Leutiviler  Report — Continued. 

protected  against  this,  (e)  A  large  number  of  the  keys 
are  rather  hard  to  turn  when  voting  a  split  ticket.  This 
is  due  to  the  interlocking  mechanism  being  set  rather 
close. 

829  (3)     Willix  Voting  Machine. 

The  Willix  machine  possesses  the  following  good 
points:  (a)  The  operations  for  voting  a  straight  ticket 
are  simple  and  easy  to  perform,  (b)  The  operations  for 
voting  a  split  ticket  are  simple  and  a  mistake  made  in 
voting  may  be  readily  corrected,  (c)  The  grouping  of 
candidates  may  be  done  on  any  part  of  the  machine,  (d) 
The  mechanism  used  for  group  and  cumulative  voting  is 
very  good  and  ingenious,  though  some  of  its  constructive 
details  might  be  improved  upon.  It  prevents  illegal  vot- 
ing absolutely,  in  fact,  I  consider  it  the  best  mechanism 
for  that  purpose  that  I  have  examined. 

The  machine  possesses  the  following  defects:  (a) 
"NTo  provisions  are  made  for  restricted  voting,  (b)  The 
keys  which  are  perpendicular  to  the  face  of  the  machine 
are  too  frail  and  by  bending  them,  the  machine  could 
readily  be  put  out  of  commission,  (c)  Some  of  the  keys 
worked  a  trifle  hard,  (d)  The  recording  mechanism  is 
far  from  being  perfect,  and  the  counters  are  not  pro- 
tected secureh'  against  tampering  by  the  judges.  In 
fact,  the  machine  should  be  locked  by  more  than  one  lock 
and  key.  (e)  The  most  serious  defect  in  this  machine 
is  that  it  may  be  manipulated  fraudulently  in  the  follow- 
ing manner:  Push  in  the  "mixed  party  key"  and  vote 
an  entire  party  ticket  or  whatever  you  desire.  Next 
jerk  back  rather  quickly  the  "mixed  party  key,"  and 
then  vote  the  "straight  party  key"  that  you  desire,  thus 
being  able  to  cast  two  votes,  (f)  The  workmanship  is 
of  an  inferior  grade,  and  the  selection  of  the  material 
could  be  improved  upon. 

830  (d)     Winslow  Voting  Machine. 

The  Winslow  machine  as  submitted  by  the  manu- 
facturers was  worthy  of  very  little  serious  considera- 
tion, for  the  reason  that  it  was  not  a  finished  piece  of 
work.  The  keys  worked  too  hard,  due  to  the  unfinished 
conditions  of  the  detail  parts.  Furthermore,  only  one 
party  lever  was  in  working  condition  and  that  worked 
much  too  hard.     The  writer  is  of  the  opinion  that  this 


Leutwiler  Report — Continued.  225 

machine  might  work  fairly  easy  after  all  the  parts  are 
Stted  together  properly.  The  mechanism  used  for  group 
and  cumulative  voting  looks  as  if  it  might  be  accurate 
providing  it  were  constructed  with  care.  The  record- 
ing mechanism  does  not  embody  good  design,  and  each 
counter  has  at  least  four  springs,  thus  making  the  total 
number  of  springs,  on  a  nine  party  seventy -key  machine, 
due  to  this  one  source  alone,  as  2,520.  Furthermore  in 
bringing  the  counter  back  to  zero  when  preparing  the 
machine  for  an  election,  requires  two  men  and  consider- 
able time.  The  machine  may  readily  be  set  up  and  moved 
about  as  it  is  mounted  on  wheels.  The  selection  of  the 
material  is  fairly  satisfactory. 

Conclusions. 

The  writer  feels  that  some  improvements  have  been 
made  in  the  design  of  voting  machines  since  the  investi- 
gation of  a  year  and  a  half  ago.  However,  there  seems 
to  be  considerable  more  to  be  done  along  that  line,  before 
the  voting  machines  will  stand  the  thorough  test  that  they 
necessarily  must  be  subjected  to,  and  until  the  defects 
mentioned  in  the  foregoing  sections  of  this  report  are 
entirely  eliminated,  the  writer  recommends  that  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
postpone  the  purchase  of  voting  machines. 

The  one  machine  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer 
comes  nearest  to  fulfilling  all  the  conditions  of  a  voting 
machine  is  the  Empire  Voting  Machine. 

The  writer  wishes  to  thank  your  Honorable  Board  for 
the  assistance  rendered  and  the  courtesies  shown  dur- 
ing the  days  of  the  examination. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)     0.  A.  Leutwilee, 
Assistant  Professor  of  Machine  Design, 
University  of  Illinoii*. 


85 
80 

50 
75 

50 
25 

100 

100 

75 

100 
100 
100 

90 

90 

100 

100 
100 
100 

100 

0 

100 

90 

50 

90 

0 

0 

0 

100 

50 

50 

226  Liietwiler  Report — Continued. 

GRADE  TABLE  No.  1 
QUESTIONS  PREPARED  BY  BOARD  OF  COMMISSIONERS 

■KT  r.TTi?aTTmvT  Em-        Tri-       Wil-        Win- 

No.  QUESTION  pi^g      ^^^^        li^  glj,^ 

1.  Mechanical  construction 100 

2.  Mechanical  action 100 

3.  Counting  mechanism  reliability  of  all 

parts 100 

4.  Counters: 

(1)  Positiveness  of  action 100 

(2)  Firmness  in  position 100 

(3)  Clinging  or  freezing  of  parts 100 

(4)  Which  has  best  protection  against 
fraudulent  manipulation 100 

5.  Strength  and  Delicacy: 

As  to  all  parts  and  entire  machine.  .     100 
833      6.   Preventive  Action: 

That  is,  will  permit  of  voting  proper 
number  of  candidates  only 0 

7.  Liability  to  get  out  of  order: 

By  accident,  design,  rust  or  otherwise    100 

8.  Grouping  of  Candidates 

Capacity  to  arrange  for  on  any  part 
of  machine 100  100  100  100 

9.  Difficulty  of  operation — Party  lever  (a) 

How  much  more  difficult  would  it  be  Not 

to  operate  a  WillLx  machine  with  9  much 

columns,  70  keys,  if  stored  for  six  harder 

months  or  a  year 

(a)  How  much  more  difficult  would  it 

be   to  operate   these   other  machines 

after  having  been  stored  for  six  months 

or  a  year 100  100  90 

10.  Fraudulent  Manipulation: 

Which  machine  would  be  less  liable 
thereto 100 

11.  Simplicity — of   arrangement   and  pre- 

paring for  voting 100 

12.  Group  voting: 

which  machine  permits  of  same  with 
greatest  ease  and  reliability 100 

13.  Cumulative  vote  legislative  candidates : 

Which  machine  shows  best  method 
of  counting  one  vote  for  three  can- 
didates, one  and  one-half  votes  for 
two  candidates,  three  votes  for  one 
candidate , 100  90  100 

One  vote  for  one  candidate  and  two 
votes  for  another  candidate 

14.  Grade  Machine : 
As  to  capacity  for  arrangement  for  cum- 
ulative voting  on  any  part  of  machine     100 

15.  Springs:    Are    there    any   used    on   the 

machine? Yes 

16.  Grade:    As  to  liability  of  rnachine  to 

get  out  of  order  or  become  injured  by 
being  hauled  to  and  from  poling  place     100 

Average  grade 95 


90 

? 

80 

90 

75 

100 

100 

? 

100 

100 

? 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

100 

100 

100 

90 

76 

54 

Report  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 


227 


GRADE  TABLE  No.  2. 
QUESTIONS  PREPARED  BY  WRITER. 


834 


No. 


QUESTIONS 


Relative      Em- 
Weights    pire 


Tri-        Wil- 
umph       lix 


Wins- 
low 


1.  Simplicity  of  operations  before 

voting 5  5  5  5  5 

2.  Simplicity  of  operations  in  vot- 

ing 'straight  ticket' 5  5  4  5  4 

3.  Simplicity  of  operations  in  vot- 

ing 'split  ticket' 3  3  3  3  3 

4.  Simplicity  of  voting  'restricted 

ticket' 2  2  2  ?  ? 

5.  Simplicity    of    operations    in 

'primary  voting' 3  3  3  ?  ? 

6.  Protection  against  fraudulent 

manipulation 10  8  8  5  ? 

7.  Accuracy  of  recording  mechan- 

ism        10  10  10  10  ? 

8.  Permanency  of  records 10  10  10  5  10 

9.  Accuracy  of  plan  for  cumula- 

tive voting 10  10  0  10  ? 

10.  Accuracy    of   plan    for    group 

voting 10  10  10  10  ? 

11.  Character  of  design 10  10  9  5  5 

12.  Correct  selection  of  material.       10  10  9  6  10 

13.  Excellency  of  workmanship.  .10  10  9  5  5 

14.  Size  and  weight 1  i  1  1  1 

15.  .Ease  with  which  the  machine 

may  be  set  up 1  i  1  1  1 

Average  grade 100  97  84  71  44 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  have  now  the  report  Exhibit  "0-19" 
of  C.  E.  DePuy,  dated  August  3,  1910.     (Reading) : 

"Beport  to  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the 
Investigation  of  Caulkins  Voting  Machine. 

August  3,  1910. 
General  Design  a/nd  Arrangement. 

This  machine  is  of  an  entirely  different  type  from  any 
of  these  previously  shown,  and  it  has  some  important 
advantages  and  also,  I  think  some  disadvantages. 

The  machine  is  comparatively  small  and  much  lighter 
than  any  other  I  have  seen,  but  the  method  of  voting  a 
ticket  is  not  altogether  desirable.  One  end  of  a  paper 
ballot,  arranged  with  the  candidates  of  each  party  in 
vertical  columns,  is  attached  to  a  horizontal  driving  bar 
connected  at  each  end  to  an  endless  chain,  and  the  other 
end  of  the  ballot  is  brought  around  and  pasted  on  the 
first  and  over  the  driving  bar.    The  ballot  is  thus  made 


835 


228  DePuy  Report — Continued. 

into  an  endless  strip  whicli  moves  along  the  space  of  one 
name  each  time  a  voting  lever  is  operated. 

The  counters,  made  of  three  small  wheels,  with  ten 
type  numbers  and  ratchet  teeth  on  each  and  rotating 
loosely  on  a  pin,  are  connected  together  by  links  form- 
ing a  chain  of  the  same  pitch  as  the  chain  moving  the 
ballot.  When  the  machine  is  operated  the  ballot  and 
counter  chains  both  move,  but  as  the  sprockets  carry- 
ing them  turn  in  opposite  directions  the  ballot  and  the 
counters  on  the  inside  of  the  machine  move  along  to- 
gether and  in  the  same  direction.  Each  name  on  the 
ballot  thus  has  its  corresponding  counter  and  at  the 
proper  place  on  the  machine  they  always  come  together. 

The  returns,  after  the  voting  is  finished,  are  deter- 
mined by  bringing  the  ballot  and  counters  into  actual 
contact  and  making  the  counters  print  the  number  of 
votes  cast  opposite  the  corresponding  name  on  the  bal- 

836  lot.  This  printing  can  be  done  rapidly  and  the  returns 
can  be  quickly  and  accurately  obtained. 

As  a  check  on  the  setting  of  the  counters,  before  the 
voting  begins  all  counters  may  be  set  to  999  and  printed 
on  the  ballot,  then  all  can  be  advanced  one  number,  set- 
ting them  all  to  000  and  again  printed  on  the  ballot. 
This  would  show  on  the  ballot  that  all  counters  are  work- 
ing and  that  they  are  all  set  right  before  the  voting  be- 
gins. 

Method  of  Voting. 

The  candidates  are  voted  for  singly  and  the  name  of 
each  must  be  brought  to  the  proper  place  on  the  machine 
in  order  to  record  the  vote.  To  accomplish  this  there 
are  provided  at  the  bottom  of  the  machine  ten  levers,  one 
for  each  of  eight  parties  indicated,  one  for  the  independ- 

837  ent  vote,  and  one  for  a  no  vote  column.  This  no  vote 
lever  provides  a  means  of  moving  the  ballot  along  with- 
out recording  a  vote  for  any  candidate.  The  name  of 
the  candidate  being  voted  must  be  between  two  lines  on 
the  glass  front  of  the  machine,  and  when  in  this  position, 
if  the  corresponding  lever  at  the  bottom  is  pulled,  the 
counter  operating  mechanism  is  set  ready  for  action,  and 
when  the  handle  is  pushed  in.  the  ballot  and  counter 
chains  are  advanced  one  link,  the  counter  pawl  operates 
on  the  ratchet  of  the  counter  of  the  candidate  voted  for 
and  advances  this  counter  one  number.    At  the  same  time 


DePuy  Report— Continued.  229 

a  dial  restricting  mechanism  is  turned  one  space  and  if 
it  is  a  single  office  candidate  voted,  the  restricting 
mechanism  releases  and  the  machine  is  set  ready  to  vote 
the  next  candidate.  If  the  candidate  voted  is  in  a  group 
of  several  for  the  same  office,  then  the  restricting  device 
is  retained  in  action  and  voting  can  continue  either  in 
the  same  eohimn  or  party,  or  in  the  same  line  hy  pulling 
the  lever  of  some  other  party  until  as  many  levers  have 
been  pulled  as  there  are  votes  allowed  in  this  group.  The 
pulling  of  this  last  lever  sets  a  restricting  bar  on  the 
bottom  of  the  machine  and  prevents  any  more  voting 
levers  being  pulled  until  the  voting  levers  have  been 
pushed  in  and  the  restricting  device  released.  If  the 
voting  in  the  group  has  all  been  done  on  one  ticket,  the 
pushing  of  the  lever  after  the  restriction  is  caused  by 

838  pulling  the  last  time,  releases  the  restriction  again  and 
the  machine  is  ready  to  vote  as  before,  because  the  ticket 
is  then  at  the  end  of  the  group.  If  the  end  of  the  group 
on  the  ticket  is  not  reached  when  the  last  lever,  making 
the  proper  number  of  votes,  is  pulled  (this  wall  occur 
when  candidates  from  more  than  one  party  are  voted 
i.  e.,  the  ticket  is  "split"),  then  the  no  vote  lever  must 
be  used  to  pass  by  the  remainder  of  the  lines  in  the  group. 
"When  the  last  line  of  the  group  is  reached  the  restrict- 
ing dial  operates  to  release  the  restricting  bar  under  the 
machine  the  same  as  is  done  if  the  voting  is  all  in  one 
party. 

Locking  of  Machine  After  the  Straight  Ticket. 

The  ticket  shown  on  the  machine  gives  the  straight 
ticket  at  the  head  of  each  party  ticket.  If  this  straight 
ticket  is  voted  then  the  dial  restricting  mechanism  oper- 
ates on  another  restricting  bar  in  the  bottom  of  the  ma- 
chine and  locks  everything  so  that  no  more  voting  can  be 
done  until  the  long  handle  has  been  turned,  which  the 
voter  does  as  he  leaves  the  machine.  Turning  this  han- 
dle returns  all  the  mechanism  to  the  original  position. 

Arrangement  of  Legislative  Ticket. 

As  the  machine  is  shown  the  legislative  ticket  can  be 

839  voted  in  either  one  of  three  groups,  viz: 

3  votes  for  1  candidate  1  pull  required. 
1-1/2  votes  for  each  of  two  candidates  2  pulls  required. 
1  vote  for  each  of  3  candidates  3  pulls  required. 
These  three  groups  are  placed  at  the  end  of  the  ticket, 


230  DePuy  Report — Continued. 

because  after  the  voter  has  finished  voting  in  any  one  of 
them,  the  final  locking  bar  is  set  and  no  more  voting  can 
be  done.  The  action  is  the  same  as  when  the  straight 
ticket  is  voted.  This  locking  arrangement  should  be 
changed  so  that  the  restriction  after  the  legislative  vote 
is  not  on  the  final  locking  bar.  This  change  would  al- 
low the  ticket  to  be  arranged  in  any  order  desired. 

Mechanical  Construction    and    Difffculty    of    Operation. 

The  mechanical  construction  of  this  machine  is  very 
faulty  in  many  respects,  and  in  operation  it  frequently 
catches  and  has  to  be  helped  over  the  hard  spots.  Until 
I  had  studied  the  machine  enough  to  learn  the  action  of 
the  various  parts,  I  was  not  able  to  make  the  machine 
operate  at  all  satisfactorily,  because  I  did  not  know  what 
to  do  to  help  it  along.  This  of  course  is  only  an  experi- 
mental machine.  In  building  another  the  designer  would 
change  many  details  and  add  a  number  of  things  that 
are  not  present  on  this  machine. 

Sprvngs. 

A  good  many  springs  are  used  to  obtain  the  desired 
840  movements.     In  building  another  many  of  these  could 
be  done  away  with  or  changed  in  form  so  that  their  ac- 
tion would  be  satisfactory. 

Checking  of  Poll  List  hi/  Machine. 

In  the  operation  of  this  machine  some  counter  on  each 
horizontal  line  must  always  register  (the  no-vote  counter 
registers  if  the  others  are  not  used),  and  so  the  sum  of 
the  numbers  registered  in  each  line  would  be  the  same 
and  should  correspond  to  the  poll  list.  It  is  the  plan  of 
the  designer  to  place  a  counter  on  each  voting  lever, 
which  will  record  the  number  of  times  each  is  pulled,  and 
these  would  also  make  a  check  on  the  corresponding 
vertical  column. 

Independent  Slide  and  Changes  on  a  New  Machine. 

With  this  machine  the  independent  votes  are  written 
on  separate  cards,  but  it  would  be  better  to  have  a  con- 
tinuous strip.  This  the  designer  proposes  to  change  in 
another  machine.  Primary  and  restricted  voter  devices 
are  also  planned  which  I  think  would  be  satisfactory.  The 
restricting  and  grouping  device  seems  to  be  very  positive, 


BePuy  Report — Continued.  231 

and  I  think  on  a  new  machine  all  the  mechanical  move- 
ments could  be  made  satisfactory. 

Advantages. 

The  advantages  of  this  machine  are : 

Small  size  and  comparatively  light  weight.    A  machine 

841  with  a  full  nine-party  ticket  would  be  somewhat  larger 
than  the  model  shown,  but  it  probably  would  not  be  larger 
than  3  feet  long,  16  inches  high,  and  15  inches  deep.  The 
weight  would  probably  be  about  300  pounds. 

Ease  of  handling  and  storing.  Machines  of  this  size 
could  be  taken  care  of  with  comparative  ease,  and  they 
would  not  occupy  much  space. 

Returns  quickly  obtained.  A  complete  record  of  the 
vote  cast  could  be  obtained  in  a  few  minutes  after  the 
polls  closed. 

Returns  printed  by  machine.  The  record  is  obtained 
by  running  the .  regular  ballot  over  the  machine  while 
holding  the  counters  in  contact  with  it.  As  many  copies 
could  be  made  as  desired.  The  first  copy  would  have  the 
999  and  the  000  imprints  also. 

Counters  give  a  check  on  poll  list.  The  sum  of  the 
numbers  registered  in  any  horizontal  line  would  always 
be  the  same  and  would  show  the  number  of  voters  using 
the  machine. 

Disadvantages. 

Voting  must  be  done  a  line  at  a  time.  The  ticket  must 
be  voted  as  each  line  of  candidates  appears  at  the  proper 
place  and  after  the  lever  is  pulled,  even  part  way,  it  can- 
not be  returned  to  change  the  vote.  For  single  candi- 
dates this  probably  would  not  cause  much  trouble,  but  in 
a  group  of  many  candidates  voters  would  be  very  likely 
to  make  moves  they  did  not  intend. 

No-Vote  Lever  Confusing. 

The  use  of  the  no-vote  lever  would  be  very  apt  to  con- 

842  fuse  an  inexperienced  voter,  and  he  would  pull  the  ticket 
past  the  candidate  wanted  before  he  was  aware  of  what 
he  was  doing. 

Voting  would  he  slow. 

In  order  to  be  sure  he  was  doing  just  what  he  ought  to, 
the  ordinary  voter  would  take  more  time  than  could  be 


232  BePuy  Report — Continued. 

allowed  in  most  places,  and  the  ignorant  voter  would,  I 
fear,  get  hopelessly  confused. 

The  advantages  outnumber  the  disadvantages,  but  I 
think  the  disadvantages  are  of  such  vital  importance  that 
they  must  outweigh  the  advantages.  The  other  machine 
presented  that  works  properly  cannot  be  considered  be- 
cause of  its  weight  and  size,  and  this  one  is  out  of  the 
question  because  of  the  way  in  which  the  machine  has  to 
be  operated.  There  is  still  a  field  for  invention  of  voting 
machines.  I  have  not  yet  seen  one  I  can  recommend  for 
use  in  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)    C.  E.  DePuy.'  " 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  have  now  the  report.  Exhibit  '0-20'  of 
Mr.  C.  E.  DePuy,  dated  July  20,  1910 : 

'  Report  to  the  Boabd  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the 
Results  of  Investigation  of  the  Tritjmph  Voting  Ma- 
chine. 

July  20, 1910. 

General  Design. 

The  general  design  and  arrangement  of  parts  is  the 
same  as  of  the  machines  previously  shown  by  this  Com- 
843  pany,  but  the  details  are  improved  in  some  particulars. 

Materials. 

Cold  rolled  steel  is  used  very  largely  in  the  construc- 
tion, some  of  the  parts  are  made  of  bronze  and  a  few  are 
aluminum.  Some  of  the  steel  parts  are  electro-galvan- 
ized, but  many  are  plain  uncoated  steel,  and  I  think  they 
would  rust  when  the  machines  are  in  storage,  and  cause 
serious  trouble.  All  working  parts  should  be  galvanized, 
or  coppered,  and  all  other  surfaces  should  be  enameled. 

Coimters. 

The  counters  are  made  by  the  Veeder  Manufacturing 
Company  and  are  operated  by  a  disc  and  pin  held  in 
place  by  the  frame  which  supports  the  counters.  The 
construction  seems  to  be  more  substantial  than  on  the 
previous  machines,  and  I  think  they  will  give  accurate 
results. 

The  arrangement  of  the  mechanism  for  resetting  the 
counters  has  also  been  improved  and  this  adjustment  can 


DePuy  Report — Continued.  233 

now  be  easily  made.  The  resetting,  however,  requires 
two  men,  considerable  time,  and  very  close  observation 
and  attention. 

Individual  Restriction  and  Grouping  of  Candidates. 

The  device  for  restricting  the  individual  voting  keys 
works  satisfactorily.  The  restriction  seems  to  be  posi- 
tive, except  on  the  independent  slides  mentioned  later, 
and  is  not  likely  to  be  changed  by  use,  although  each 
wedge  has  a  screw  for  adjustment  if  necessary.    When 

844  the  machine  is  arranged  to  vote  a  group  of  candidates  the 
same  restriction  device  is  used  and  seems  to  be  perfectly 
positive  without  special  adjustment  as  was  required  be- 
fore. 

Cumulative  Vote  Device. 

The  device  for  cumulative  voting  is  practically  the  same 
as  that  sho\vn  on  the  earlier  machine,  but  there  are  some 
changes  in  the  details  of  the  parts  which  make  it  some- 
what more  positive,  but  it  is  not  yet  satisfactory.  The 
legislative  ticket  can  be  voted  in  five  ways,  viz. : 
H  votes  for  each  of  2  candidates  1  key  used 

o"         ((  <<(((<      1  II  1  "  " 

2      "       "  1  candidate  and  1  for  an- 

other 2    "       " 

1      "       "     each  of  3  candidates  3     "       " 

The  first  three  groups  are  controlled  by  one  set  of  re- 
stricting Avedges  and  seem  to  work  positively,  but  the  last 
two  groups  are  controlled  by  another  set  of  wedges  and 
they  are  not  properly  proportioned.  When  adjusted  so 
that  the  three  individual  candidates  can  be  voted  easily, 
two  keys  can  be  operated  in  the  other  group,  making  two 
votes  for  each  of  two  candidates.  If  the  device  is  ad- 
justed so  that  only  one  key  can  be  voted  in  the  two-vote 
group,  then  the  last  key  voted  in  the  single  candidate 
group  works  very  hard.  The  whole  device  is  cumbersome 
and  has  too  many  parts  to  be  satisfactory. 

845  Indepetident  Vote  Slides. 

The  slides  used  for  independent. voting  are  not  prop- 
erly locked.  Any  of  these  slides  can  be  raised  five-eighths 
of  an  inch  and  slides  on  columns  5  and  29  can  be  raised 
three-quarters  of  an  inch  without  operating  the  i-estrict- 
ing  wedges.    The  slide  on  column  1  will  sometimes  lock, 


234  DePuy  Report — Continued. 

but  that  on  column  7  never  locks  Avlien  the  slide  is  raised 
to  the  top  and  then  pulled  down  again.  In  these  columns 
it  is  then  possible  to  vote  twice  for  any  office  by  writing 
a  name  in  the  slide  opening  and  then  voting  in  the  regu- 
lar way  afterward. 

The  same  thing  can  be  done  on  any  of  the  columns,  if 
the  name  is  short,  by  writing  through  the  five-eighths  inch 
opening  of  the  slides. 

The  reason  that  the  operating  of  the  slides  on  column  7 
does  not  lock  the  regular  voting  key  is  that  the  strip  on 
the  slide  connecting  with  the  restricting  wedge  is  a  little 
too  long,  and  when  the  wedge  is  up  there  is  no  tension 
on  this  strip,  and  it  is  free  to  fall  back  into  its  original 
position.  The  wedge  is  of  such  shape  that  it  stays  up 
by  friction.  While  this  condition  appears  only  on  this 
wedge  and  strip  now,  I  see  no  reason  why  it  may  not  ap- 
pear on  any  of  them  at  any  time. 

The  Primary  Device. 

The  device  for  arranging  for  one  or  more  lines  to  be 
846  used  by  a  party  in  a  primary  election  is  a  great  improve- 
ment over  that  previously  sho-wn.    It  is  easily  adjusted 
and  operates  satisfactorily. 

Desirability  of  Machine. 

The  machine  as  shown  is  not  satisfactory  and  I  believe 
some  parts  might  fail  to  operate  sometimes  even  if  the 
failure  noted  were  overcome. 

The  machine  also  has  the  same  objections  regarding 
size,  weight,  and  storing  qualities  as  before,  and  I  think 
it  is  not  a  type  of  machine  desired  by  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)     C.  E.  DePuy. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  have  now  the  report,  Exhibit '  0-21 '  of 
Mr.  C.  E.  DePuy,  dated  July  1,  1910  (reading) : 

"Eepokt  to  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the 
Results  of  the  Investigation  of  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine. 

July  1,  1910. 

Construction. 

The  material,  workmanship,  and  general  design  are  of 


ff 


DePuy  Report — Continued.  235 

the  same  excellent  character  as  shown  on  the  machine 
previously  exhibited;  and  I  believe  that  this  machine 
would  be  durable  and  reliable  in  action. 

Springs. 

Springs  are  used  in  several  places  to  assist  the  action 
or  to  counterbalance  the  weight  of  the  various  parts  to 

847  which  they  are  connected ;  but  their  material  and  applica- 
tion are  such  as  to  give  reliable  results.  In  many  cases 
where  springs  are  used  their  action  is  not  absolutely  es- 
sential to  the  operations  of  the  machine,  but  they  assist 
the  movement  of  other  parts,  making  their  action  quicker 
and  more  reliable  than  they  would  be  without  the  springs. 

Counters. 

The  counters  are  the  same  as  used  on  the  previous  ma- 
chine, and,  I  believe  are  perfectly  reliable,  positive,  and 
durable. 

Individual  Restriciion  and  Grouping  of  Candidates. 

The  strips  and  wedges  for  restricting  the  number  of 
keys  that  can  be  operated  are  simple  in  construction  and 
positive  in  operation.  By  a  very  easily  manipulated  ad- 
justment the  machine  can  be,  anywhere,  set  to  vote  for  a 
single  candidate  or  a  group  of  any  reasonable  number. 
The  arrangement  of  a  large  group  does  not  interfere  with 
the  ease  of  voting  nor  with  the  absolute  restriction  to  the 
correct  number  of  votes. 

Cumulative  Vote  Device. 

■  The  attachment  for  regulating  the  cumulative  vote  can 
be  placed  anywhere  on  the  machine,  and  compels  the 
vote  to  be  cast  in  one  of  three  ways,  viz.:  Three  votes 
for  either  of  two  candidates;  two  votes  for  either  of  the 
two  candidates,  and  one  for  the  other;  or  one  and  one- 
half  votes  each  for  the  two  candidates. 

The  device  is  used  in  connection  with  the  regular  re- 
stricting mechanism  which  controls  the  actual  number  of 

848  votes,  and  compels  the  voter  to  confine  himself  to  the 
group  in  which  he  has  begun  to  vote.  As  shown  it  is  di- 
vided into  four  sections,  each  section  controlling  three 
voting  keys.  One,  two,  or  three  of  these  sections  control 
the  first  method  of  grouping,  while  the  fourth  section  con- 
trols the  second  method.    This  last  group  requires  but 


236  DePuy  Report — Continued. 

two  voting  keys,  and  consequently  one  key  in  this  groUp 
is  left  blank. 

The  device  could  be  arranged  to  vote  the  one  and  one- 
half  votes  for  each  of  the  two  candidates  on  one  ticket 
by  the  operation  of  a  single  key,  thus  making  use  of  the 
key  that  would  otherwise  be  left  blank.  If  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  should  decide  to  purchase  these 
machines,  I  think  it  would  be  desirable  to  make  this 
change. 

Improper  Adjustment  of  Device  as  Shown. 

As  the  device  is  now  shown  on  the  machine,  all  four  sec- 
tions must  be  used,  because  the  stationary  top-bar  of  the 
grouping  device  is  too  wide  to  clear  the  projecting  lugs 
on  the  restricting  strips  of  the  individual  voting  keys. 
When  the  first  two  sections  are  nominally  thrown  out  of 
this  action,  this  top-bar  causes  the  device  to  operate  just 
the  same.  In  other  words,  these  sections  can  not  be 
thrown  out  of  action.  Making  this  top-bar  a  little  nar- 
849  rower  will  allow  it  to  operate  as  intended. 

Primary  Voting  Device. 

The  device  for  controlling  the  number  of  bars  used  by 
each  party  in  a  primary  election  is  very  simple  and  ef- 
fective. It  accomplishes  the  end  desired  without  in  any 
way  interfering  with  the  accuracy  or  ease  of  manipula- 
tion of  the  machine  for  other  purposes. 

Desirability  of  Purchasing  Machines. 

The  machine  presented  I  believe  will  receive  and  record 
votes  in  an  election  accurately  and  quickly,  after  the  ma- 
chine is  adjusted  and  the  voters  have  received  the  proper 
instruction,  and  thus  will  simplify  the  work  of  judges  and 
clerks  in  securing  correct  returns. 

To  offset  these  advantages,  however,  the  machine  is 
large,  heavy,  and  difficult  to  move  and  store.  If  many 
machines  were  used  in  an  election  it  would  be  a  great 
undertaking  to  get  them  properly  adjusted  and  placed  in 
the  voting  places.  The  custodian  would  fill  a  very  re- 
sponsible position,  for  on  him  would  depend  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  machine,  and  he,  through  error  or  fraud,  could 
so  adjust  the  machine  that  it  would  nullify  its  operation 
in  a  given  election. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  I  believe  that  it  is  not  desir- 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  -     237 

able  for  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  to  purchase 
many  of  these  machines  at  present. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)    C.  E.  DePuy." 

869  The  witness  had  considered  the  objections  which  have 
been  made  to  the  machine  prior  to  1911  by  the  experts 
assigned  to  examine  them. 

870  It  was  his  judgment,  based  upon  reports  of  these  ex- 
perts that  at  the  present  time  the  machines  belonging  to 
the  Empire  Company,  namely,  the  United  States  Stand- 
ard, the  Columbia  and  the  Empire  unanimously  stood  at 
the  head  of  the  machines  examined  in  all  the  examina- 
tions and  that  in  the  last  examination,  those  of  1909  and 
1910,  the  Empire  stood  at  the  head. 

Witness  does  not  think  that  any  discussion  was  had 
officially  at  any  regular  or  special  meeting  of  the  Election 
Commissioners  on  the  reports  of  the  experts  that  had  been 
furnished  to  the  Board  but  that  they  were  discussed  at 
times,  "whenever  we  would  meet,  that  is,  whenever  we 
would  meet  in  the  Board  room  together." 

871  The  Commissioners  had  their  discussions  in  the  same 
room  where  the  Commission  had  its  meetings.  The  Com- 
missioners went  to  the  rooms  ever-^  day  most  of  the  time, 
and  sometimes  nights,  but  not  necessarily  to  hold  a  for- 
mal Board  meeting.    The  Commission  had  no  particular 

872  day  for  its  meetings.  The  Commissioners  were  usually 
called  together  by  the  Chairman  whenever  exigency  re- 
quired it. 

Witness  thinks  the  old  reports  prior  to  1911  were  talked 
over  by  the  Commissioners. 

Witness  is  asked  as  to  the  qualifications  of  the  Com- 
missioners for  passing  on  such  matters  and  states  that 
Kellermann  was  a  manufacturer  of  machinery.  Witness ' 
knowledge  of  mechanics  is  "just  the  mere  common  sense 
of  the  average  citizen."    Witness  is  a  lawyer. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  had  been  engaged  in  news- 
paper work  and  once  had  been  connected  with  a  bank. 

873  Objection  to  the  weight  of  the  machine  was  met  by 
the  contention  on  the  part  of  the  witness  that  "I  did  not 
see  and  cannot  see  how  it  would  be  possible  for  an  im- 
mense ticket  with  a  lighter  machine  and  that,  heavy  as 
the  machine  w^as,  they  had  been  handled  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  without  any  very  great  difficulty  and  without  any 


238  Objections  Raised  by  Experts  Considered. 

accident";  "handled  before  our  time."  "Some  37  ma- 
chines had  been  put  into  tlie  polling  places  and  taken  out 
and  everybody  seemed  to  be  enthusiastic  over  their  oper- 
ation, especialh^  the  reports  in  the  newspapers.  Further 
than  that,  I  knew  they  were  handling  a  much  heavier  ma- 
chine, and  had  been  for  a  number  of  years,  in  Indian- 
apolis, and  that,  upon  the  whole,  the  machines  widely 
used  thi'oughout  the  United  States  were  machines  not 
greatly  lighter  than  our  own  and  that  weight  didn't  seem 
to  be  any  serious  obstacle." 

The  objection  made  in  1909  that  the  machines  with  a 
party  lever  permitted  the  voter  to  vote  a  straight  ticket 
and  then  vote  specially  in  the  same  line  of  candidates 
had  been  made  "before  our  time  in  the  reports  of  1910, 
and  it  was  entirely  absent  when  Judge  Owens'  experts 
examined  it." 

874  The  objection  as  to  the  lack  of  restriction  of  number 
of  inspections  was  talked  over  and  witness  did  not  regard 
it  as  a  serious  objection. 

"Witness  did  not  regard  as  a  vital  objection  going  to 
the  honesty  of  the  count  that  the  judges  were  obliged  to 
total  the  straight  and  individual  votes.  Witness  expected 
only  that  the  machine  would  honesly  record  and  pre- 
serve the  voter's  choice. 

"Q.  So  far  as  any  difficulties  that  might  arise  over 
false  registration,  impersonation,  repeating  and  all  those 
matters  outside  of  the  machine,  they  represented  a  human 
element  in  the  election  and  you  did  not  expect  the  machine 
to  take  care  of  that?"    The  question  received  no  answer. 

875  In  looking  after  the  human  element  surrounding  the 
machines,  the  Election  Commissioners  adopted  various 
rules  and  instructions  based  upon  experience,  to  guard 
against  fraud  by  permitting  checking  up  of  one  upon 
another.  The  Commission  also  went  over  registration 
lists,  especially  in  river  wards,  called  in  voters  and 
checked  their  testimony  trying  to  purify  the  ballot. 

876  In  advocating  voting  machines,  witness  was  influenced 
by  what  he  believed  was  the  public  sentiment  as  expressed 
in  the  public  press.  Files  of  newspaper  clippings  were 
found  by  the  witness  in  the  vaults  of  the  Commission, 
probably  300  or  more.  Witness  has  a  portion  of  the  clip- 
pings and  states  that  they  show  that  all  the  newspapers 
here  in  the  English  language  were  in  favor  of  voting  ma- 
chines from  1903  down  to  1910. 


The  Vote  of  the  People.  239 

Witness  also  knew  the  results  of  the  election  in  1904 
and  that  the  people  voted  over  8  to  1  in  favor  of  adopting 
the  machines. 

877  Witness  had  also  inquired  during  the  consideration  of 
the  voting  machine  question  in  1911  concerning  the  use  of, 
voting  machines  in  other  cities  and  went  over  a  large  num- 
ber of  testimonials  on  tile  in  the  Election  Commissioners ' 
office. 

878  Witness  had  learned  that  at  several  places  voting  ma- 
chines had  been  rejected  or  invalidated,  in  all  of  the  mu- 
nicipalities of  New  Jersey  and  two  or  three  other  places. 
The  reason  for  the  New  Jersey  action  is  given  in  the 
official  report,  "It  was  a  matter  of  policy  and  locality, 
mainly. ' ' 

New  Jersey  had  purchased  a  limited  number  of  ma- 
chines and  there  were  disputes  as  to  where  they  should' 
be  placed.  Massachusetts  had  used  the  voting  machines 
but  the  Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  under  their 
pecliar  constitution  the  machines  were  not  valid. 

880  The  witness  had  learned  the  machines  were  still  in 
operation  in  Buffalo,  in  Schenectady,  Syracuse,  Eoclies- 
ter,  Utica,  and  there  were  still  some  others.  They  were 
also  in  use  in  Indiana  at  Indianapolis  and  Evansville 
and  Peru. 

Witness  is  asked  by  Mr.  Deneen  whether  he  recalls 
their  use  in  Pulaski  County,  Indiana.  Witness  replies: 
"Probably,  I  do  not  recall." 

In  Connecticut  they  had  them  at  Hartford,  Danbury, 
Bridgeport,  and  lots  of  other  places,  and  in  Minnesota, 
Minneapolis  and  other  places. 

881  Witness  also  knew  at  one  time  but  could  not  quite  re- 
call what  state  commissions  had  approved  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine. 

Witness  is  handed  a  package  marked  "Judge  Owens' 
Exhibit  24"  purporting  to  be  a  certified  copy  of  Com- 
mon Council  Board  proceedings  of  the  City  of  Hartford, 
Conn.,  and  his  attention  called  to  pages  786  to  page  814 
inclusive.  Witness  had  seen  these  prior  to  voting  ma- 
chine matter  in  1911.  Witness  had  seen  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Common  Council  of  Hartford,  Conn.  It  was 
on  file  in  the  Election  Commissioners'  office.  The  pro- 
ceedings were  dated  February  10,  1902. 

882  This  document  was  then  offered  in  evidence  by  Mr. 
McEwen.     Introduction  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen  on 


240        Hartford,  Connecticut,  and  Voting  Machines. 

the  ground  that    it    includes    the    newspaper    clipping 
883  "which  may  be  nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  attempt 
to  advertise." 

That  portion  of  the  document  is  admitted  which  re- 
ports the  proceedings  of  the  Council  Board  of  Hartford, 
Connecticut,  excerpts  from  newspaper  clippings  ex- 
cluded. 

886  Mr.  McEwen  here  read  in  evidence  the  part  of  the 
document  which  was  admitted  in  evidence  as  follows: 

"Report  of  the  Board  of  Selectmen,  with  accompany- 
ing resolutions,  blank  form  of  agreement,  wdth  surety 
and  letters  and  testimonials  from  other  cities,  on  com- 
886-894  munication  re  U.  S.  Standard  Voting  Machine;  the 
matter  of  adopting  said  machines  having  been  referred 
to  said  Board  November  25,  1901,  by  the  court  of  Com- 
mon Council,  came  from  the  Board  of  Aldermen  with 
the  second  resolution  embodied  therein  passed,  and  the 
rest  of  the  report  referred  to  a  joint  special  committee 
of  two  Aldermen  and  four  Councilmen  and  the  Board  of 
Selectmen.     Aldermen  Wells  and  Ball  appointed. 

"The  report  is  as  follows: 

To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Selectmen  of  the  City  of 

887  Hartford: 

Gentlemen:  Your  committee,  to  w-hom  was  referred 
the  matter  of  drafting  a  favorable  report  on  voting  ma- 
chines, beg  leave  to  report  that  they  have  given  the 
matter  careful  consderation  and  submit  the  following 
for  your  approval. 

W.  H.  ScoviixE, 
Charles  W.   Doughebty, 
Henky  F.   Smith,   Clerk, 
Special  Committee  of  Board  of  Selectmen. 
Hartpobd,  Conn.,  Jan.  25,  1902. 
To  the  Honorable  Court  of  Common  Council  of  the  City 
of  Hartford: 

'The  Board  of  Selectmen,  to  whom  w^as  referred  the 
matter  of  adopting  voting  machines,  beg  leave  to  re- 
port : 

'The  Legislature  of  1901  created  a  State  Board  of 
Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  to  be  appointed  by  the 
Governor  who  were  to  examine  any  machine  brought 
before  them.  Any  machine  approved  by  this  Commis- 
sion would  then  be  a  legal  machine  and  could  be  then 


Hartford  Report — Continued.  241 

used  in  any  citj^  or  town  election  of  the  State  of  Con- 
necticut. The  Governor  appointed  Henry  H.  Snell, 
Samuel  C.  Hardin  and  Frederick  W.  Cooper  as  Voting 
Machine  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Connecticut. 

'This  Commission  examined  the  U.  S.  Standard  Voting 
Machine  and  have  filed  a  report  with  the  Secretary  of 
State,  in  which  they  state  that  this  machine  complies 

888  Avith  all  the  laws  of  Connecticut,  which  are  as  follows : 

'Section  3  of  Chapter  120  P.  A.  1901,  page  1257: 

'A  voting  machine  to  be  approved  by  the  State  Board 
of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners  must  be  so  con- 
structed as  to  provide  facilities  for  voting  for  the  can- 
didates of  at  least  seven  different  parties  or  organiza- 
tions. 

'It  must  be  provided  with  a  single  straight  ticket  de- 
vice for  each  of  said  parties,  by  the  use  of  which  a  voter 
may  vote  for  all  the  candidates  of  that  party. 

*lt  must  permit  a  voter  to  vote  for  any  person  for 
any  office  whether  or  not  nominated  as  a  candidate  by 
any  party  or  organization. 

'It  must  permit  voting  in  absolute  secrecy. 

'Such  machine  shall  also  be  constructed  that  a  voter 
cannot  vote  for  a  candidate  or  on  a  proposition  for  whom 
or -on  which  he  is  not  lawfully  entitled  to  vote. 

'It  must  also  be  so  constructed  as  to  prohibit  voting 
for  more  than  one  person  for  the  same  office,  except 
where  a  voter  is  lawfully  entitled  to  vote  for  more  than 
one  person  for  that  office. 

'It  must  afford  him  an  opportunity  to  vote  for  as 
many  persons  for  that  office  as  he  is  by  law  entitled 
to  vote  for,  and  no  more,  at  the  same  time  preventing 
his  voting  for  the   same  person  twice. 

'It  must  be  so  constructed  that  all  votes  cast  by  voters 
are  registered  or  recorded  by  said  machine. 

889  'It  must  be  so  provided  with  a  lock  or  locks  by  means 
of  which  any  movement  of  the  voting  or  registering 
mechanism  is  absolutely  prevented. 

'  The  approval  of  the  Commissioners  makes  this  a  legal 
rnethod  of  voting  only  in  City,  Town  and  Borough  elec- 
tions in  this  State. 

'This  Board  have  examined  the  U.  S.  Standard  Voting 
Machine  and  we  believe  that  the  interests  of  the  City  will 
be  enhanced,  both  morally  and  financially  by  the  adop- 
tion of  this  machine. 


242  Hartford  Report — Continued. 

'These  machines  have  been  thoroughly  proven  and 
tested,  having  been  in  practical  use  for  four  years  in 
the  State  of  New  York  and  are  the  only  method  of  voting 
in  twenty  cities  and  over  fifty  towns  in  this,  New  York 
State. 

'By  their  use  the  accurate  results  of  each  election  are 
obtained  promptly  at  the  close  of  the  polls  and  all  re- 
counts and  election  contests  are  reduced  to  a  minimum. 
The  expenses  of  election  are  greatly  reduced. 

'The  most  important  features  of  this  machine  claimed 
by  its  manufacturers  are  simplicity,  accuracy,  speed, 
durability  and  economy,  and  on  these  five  essentials  we 
have  based  our  investigations. 

'The  first  claim,  that  of  simplicity,  involves  the  ability 
of  all  voters,  educated  or  illiterate,  to  operate  the  ma- 
chine in  such  a  manner  as  to  correctly  express  their 
sentiments  upon  any  subject  which  may  be  submitted 
for  their  vote. 
890  'As  to  this  feature,  we  cannot  find  that  the  machine 
has  ever  disfranchised  a  voter.  On  the  contrary,  it 
would  seem  from  what  outside  evidence  we  have  secured, 
that  it  insures  and  protects  the  franchise  of  the  voter. 

'In  our  investigations  upon  this  point,  we  have  en- 
deavored to  secure  the  opinion  of  some  Hartford  citizen 
wdio  may  in  the  past  have  been  called  upon  to  vote  upon 
the  machine  while  yet  a  citizen  of  some  sister  city  where 
it  was  in  actual  use,  or  who  may  have  witnessed  its 
workings  while  temporarily  abroad,  and  in  both  in- 
stances have  been  fortunate  enough  to  meet  such  par- 
ties. The  first,  a  gentleman  and  acquaintance  of  our 
City  Clerk  and  now  managing  an  insurance  agency  in  our 
City,  was  a  citizen  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  up  to  about  a  year 
ago  and  had  voted  on  the  machine  in  that  city.  He  was 
enthusiastic  in  his  report  of  the  machine,  and  pro- 
nounced it  a  grand  success  with  all  voters  there,  with- 
out regard  to  educational  qualifications,  and  called  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  Buffalo  has  a  very  large  element 
of  her  population  who  are  illiterate;  yet  the  machine 
stands  in  great  favor  with  them  all. 

'The. second,  a  personal  friend  of  City  Clerk  Smith, 
now  and  for  many  years  past  a  citizen  of  Hartford,  who 
has  made  business  trips  to  the  Cities  of  Rochester  and 
Buffalo  for  four  years  past,  in  the  autumn  of  each  year, 
Avlien  elections  were  being  held.    His  attention  was  first 


Hartford  Report — Contiwued.  243 

accidentally  called  to  the  machine  in  the  City  of  Roches- 

891  ter  in  the  month  of  October,  1898,  four  years  ago  when 
the  voters  of  that  city  were  for  the  first  time  heing  in- 
structed in  the  use  of  it,  preparatory  for  the  election  to 
follow  in  November  of  that  year.  His  interest  being 
aroused  in  such  an  innovation,  he  was  himself,  by  cour- 
tesy, instructed  upon  the  machine,  and  has  watched  its 
results  with  much  interest  ever  since.  In  Buffalo  he  has 
many  times  casually  dropped  into  a  voting  booth  just 
before  an  election  and  questioned  the  precinct  officials 
as  to  its  workings,  always  receiving  from  them  the  same 
unstinted  praise  tliat  seems  to  follow  the  machine  wher- 
ever seen  and  tested. 

'A  son  of  the  party  just  mentioned,  who  was  formerly 
a  citizen  of  Hartford,  and  voted  here,  but  is  now,  and 
has  been  for  four  years  past,  a  citizen  and  voter  of 
Rochester,  N.  Y.,  offers  similar  testimony. 

'We  have  also  received  a  reply  to  a  letter  written  to 
an  ex-City  Clerk  of  Buffalo  in  which  the  writer  expresses 
his  approval  of  the  speed,  accuracy  and  economy  of  the 
machine. 

'The  reply  to  our  letter  to  the  Hon.  Conrad  Diehl,  ex- 
Mayor  of  Buffalo,  substantiates  in  almost  every  par- 
ticular the  claim  made  by  the  manufacturers  of  the  ma- 
chine in  question. 

'As  to  the  durability  of  the  machine,  time  alone  must 
pass  upon  that  question;  but,  judging  from  the  char- 
acter of  construction  and  materials  used,  the  claims  of 
its  manufacturers  upon  that  point  would  seem  to  be 
well  grounded. 

892  '  To  sum  up  the  result  of  our  investigation  thus  far,  all 
the  information  which  we  have  received  goes  to  show 
that  all  voters  can  easily  be  taught  to  vote  correctly  on 
this  machine;  that  every  vote  is  automatically  regis- 
tered, thus  eliminating  all  mistakes  and  doubts  in  count- 
ing; that  the  method  of  voting  is  an  absolutely  secret 
one ;  that  votes  can  be  cast  far  more  speedily  than  under 
our  present  system;  while  the  final  result  is  obtained 
almost  immediately  after  the  close  of  the  polls;  that  the 
cost  of  elections  is  greatly  reduced;  that  the  machines 
are  compact,  easily  taken  down,  safe  in  transportation, 
and  simply  and  quickly  put  into  position  for  use;  that 
liability  to  get  out  of  order  is  reduced  to  the  minimum; 
that  the  present  ordinary  expenses  of  candidates   are 


244  Hartford  Report — Continued. 

literally  done  away  with;  in  fact,  that  every  condition 
sought  under  our  present  system  is  obtained  on  this 
machine,  with  added  certainty,  greater  secrecy,  and  a 
great  reduction  in  time  and  expense. 

'And  this  information  has  been  obtained  without  re- 
gard to  any  claims  made  for  the  machine  by  its  manu- 
facturers. 

'While  considering  the  object  aimed  at  in  examining 
into  the  merits  of  this  method  of  voting,  we  feel  that  we 
cannot  do  better  than  call  your  attention  to  the  words 
of  His  Excellency,  Governor  George  P.  McLean,  on  page 
13  of  his  Message  to  the  General  Assembly  of  1901.  The 
893  sentiments  there  expressed,  under  the  heading  "Purity 
of  the  Ballot,"  are  comprehensive  and  to  the  point,  and 
may  be  read  with  interest  and  profit  by  all  our  people, 
and  are  so  simple  and  plain  that  advanced  scholars  of 
our  grammar  schools  cannot  mistake  their  meaning.' 

"Kesol,at;d,  That  the  Ordinance  Committee  prepare  an 
ordinance  for  submission  to  the  Honorable  Court  of 
Common  Council  which  will  legalize  the  use  of  Voting 
Machines  at  all  Citv  and  Town  elections  of  Hartford, 
Conn." 

896  Witness  does  not  recall  having  talked  with  any  of  his 
predecessors  in  office.  Witness  has  read  Mr.  Powell's" 
article  and  has  read  the  report  identified  as  "Owens' 
Exhibits  3  to  8,"  made  by  various  officials  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey. 

Mr.  McEwen  offers  them  in  evidence. 
Witness  understands  that  these  documents  are,  in  a 
general  way,  favorable  to  voting  machines. 

897  "Mr.  McEwen.  I  want  to  read  the  paragraph  of  one 
report,  'Owens'  Exhibit  6'  from  the  annual  report  of 
the  Secretary  of  State  of  Xew  Jersey  relative  to  the 
paper  ballots  and  voting  machines.  Dated  December 
22d,  1908." 

Mr.  McEwen  then  reads  as  follows: 

"In  addition  to  the  reasons  mentioned  in  the  last  re- 
port, it  is  the  belief  of  the  department  that  the  chief 
897-903  and  the  underlying  reason  for  the  opposition  to  the 
voting  machines  in  New  Jersey  is  the  manner  in  which 
their  use  was  provided  for.  The  voting  machines  are 
properly  the  property  of  the  municipalities,  and,  except 
in  New  Jersey,  they  have  been  procured  at  municipal 
expense,  as  paper  ballot  boxes  are  procured  here.    This 


New  Jersey  and  the  Voting  Machine.  245 

State  undertook  to  supply  a  limited  number  of  machines. 
By  this  method,  it  became  necessary  to  discriminate  be- 
tween election  districts,  some  districts  being  provided 
with  the  new  method  of  voting  without  cost,  while  others 
were  forced  to  retain  the  old  system  or  to  provide  ma- 
chines at  their  own  expense.  The  members  of  the  legis- 
lature, also,  having  made  the  necessary  appropriation 
for  the  purchase  of  the  limited  number  of  machines, 
sought  to  secure  for  their  respective  counties  their  pro- 
portionate share,  with  the  result  that  instead  of  having 
the  machines  properly  grouped  together  in  a  given  num- 
ber of  municipalities,  so  that  a  fair  and  reasonable  test 
of  their  efficiency  might  be  made,  they  were  scattered 
without  system  throughout  the  different  counties.  Al- 
though this  seemed  at  the  time  equitable  and  just,  ex- 
perience has  proven  that  it  was  an  entirely  mistaken 
policy.  Two  systems  of  voting  were  thereby  forced  upon 
many  municipalities  to  the  general  dissatisfaction  of 
all,  thus  placing  the  new  method  at  great  disadvantage. 
But  more  important,  the  legislature  and  the  Secretary 
of  State,  who  is  charged  with  the  location  of  the  ma- 
chines, being  of  the  same  political  party,  an  opportunity 
was   immediately  given   to   those   of  opposing  political 

898  faiths  to  assume  that  the  machines  were  being  located 
or  relocated  with  a  view  of  accomplishing  a  partisan, 
rather  than  a  public  service.  Indeed,  many  of  those 
affiliated  with  the  dominant  party  were  of  the  same  opin- 
ion. The  department  has  no  hesitancy  at  the  present 
time  in  saying  that  the  appeals  of  party  workers  of  all 
parties,  either  for  original  location  of  machines  or  for 
removal  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  accomplishing  some 
partisan  purpose,  were  both  unreasonable  and  unjust. 

899  Such  procedure  could  naturally  produce  no  other  effect 
on  the  average  mind  of  a  member  of  an  opnosition  party 
than  that  the  machines  were  unworthy  devices  to  aid 
rather  than  to  prevent  ballot  manipulation;  and  logic, 
education,  and  training  have  not  yet  proven  sufficient 
to  change  such  opinion.  Added  to  this  was  the  quite 
general  disposition  among  election  officers  and  others 
charged  with  the  use  of  the  machine  to  instruct  voters 
only  in  those  features  which  would  enable  the  voter  to 
cast  his  ballot  the  way  the  instructor  desired.  If  the 
instructor  were  a  Republican,  the  voter  would  probably 
be  instructed  only  in  the  way  to  pull  the  Republican 


246  New  Jersey  Report — Continued. 

lever ;  if  the  instructor  were  a  Democrat,  the  voter  would 
be  told  onl}'  about  the  Democratic  lever.  If  the  instructor 
desired  the  voter  to  split  a  ballot,  he  would  teach  him 
simply  how  to  accomplish  a  particular  cut.  If  he  desired 
a  straight  ballot  voted,  he  refrained  entirely  from  in- 
structing in  the  method  of  voting  split  ballots.  In  many 
instances,  where  the  voter  requested  instruction  on  split- 
ting ballots,  the  instructor  would  discourage  or  advise 
against  such  voting.  The  whole  purpose  of  many  election 
oflScers  seemed  to  be  to  see  how  little,  rather  than  how 
complete,  instructions  they  could  give  the  voters. 

900  In  1906,  when  the  elections  in  several  districts  where 
voting  machines  were  located  resulted  disastrously  to 
the  dominant  party,  those  thoughtless  members  of  that 
party  who  had  allowed  themselves  to  believe  that  the 
machine  was  indeed  for  their  own  selfish  advantage  be- 
came disgusted  with  what  they  promptly  came  to  regard 
as  a  faithless  servant,  and  they,  too,  from  that  time, 
became  enemies  of  the  machine. 

In  the  last  report  on  voting  machines,  after  answer- 
ing at  length,  and  as  is  believed,  absolutely  and  finally, 
all  the  honest  objections  that  have  thus  far  been  raised 
to  the  use  of  voting  machines,  four  recommendations 
were  made,  the  principles  of  which  it  is  sought  herewith 
to  re-incorporate  in  the  present  report. 

They  are: 

First.  Two  systems  of  voting  should  not  exist  in  the 
same  municipality,  and  a  machine  once  located  should 
not  be  removed. 

Second.  Arrangements  should  be  made  whereby 
every  voter  may  have  ample  opportunity  to  examine  the 
machine  and  to  understand  every  detail  of  its  operation. 
Every  voter  should  also  be  provided,  before  election, 
with  a  fac-simile  of  the  face  of  the  machine,  showing 
how  the  names  of  the  respective  candidates  will  appear 
thereon  on  election  day. 

901  Third.  Each  municipality  where  machines  are  used 
should  be  supplied  with  at  least  one  person  from  each 
political  party  who  is  sufficiently  versed  in  the  mechan- 
ical construction  of  voting  machines  to  pass  such  exam- 
ination as  the  department  shall  prepare  and  conduct, 
and  all  municipal  clerks  should  either  be  themselves  thus 
prepared  or  have  someone  in  their  employ  Avho  has  suc- 
cessfully passed  such  an  examination. 


New  Jersey  Report — Continued.  247 

Fourth.  Abolition  of  party  levers,  especially  if  the 
Massachusetts,  Montana,  or  Minnesota  form  of  paper 
ballot  should  be  adopted,  is  also  recommended.  In  such 
cases  provision  should  be  made  that  where  a  candidate 
of  a  given  party  is  endorsed  for  the  same  office  by  other 
parties  his  name  shall  appear  only  once  on  the  face  of 
the  machine,  thereby  eliminating  the  use  of  endorsing 
bars,  a  very  ingenious  and  valuable  device,  but  one  which 
election  officers  seem,  in  many  instances,  incapable  of 
comprehending. 

The  use  of  two  methods  of  voting  in  the  same  munici- 
pality has  been  found  productive  of  much  ill-feeling. 
Voters  are  unable  to  understand  why  there  should  be 
discrimination.  Those  who  desire  to  use  machines. and 
are  residents  of  districts  not  equipped  with  them  are 
equal  in  their  condemnation  with  those  who  reside  in 
voting  machine  districts,  but  prefer  the  paper  ballots. 

902  The  necessity  for  education  of  voters  in  the  use  of 
machines  is  paramount.  Voters  must  know  how  to  cast 
their  ballots.  A  person  becoming  acquainted  at  the  same 
time  with  both  our  paper  ballots  and  our  voting  ma- 
chines will  more  readily  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the 
machine  method  than  of  the  paper  ballot  method.  Much 
of  the  present  opposition  is  because  voters  already  have 
a  knowledge  of  paper  ballot  voting,  and  have  been  com- 
pelled to  learn,  often  from  incompetent  or  unwilling 
instructors,  the  machine  method.  A  thorough  acquaint- 
ance with  the  machine  seldom  fails  to  convince  voters 
of  both  its  ease  and  its  infallibility. 

The  fourth  recommendation  is  important,  particularly 
if  the  state  adopts  a  paper  ballot  requiring  the  voter 
to  mark  each  individual  name.' 

902  Mr.  McEwen.  Now,  I  will  read  the  concluding  para- 
graph, which  is  just  a  glance  at  the  future,  by  Mr.  S.  D. 
Dickinson,  Secretary  of  State.    (Reading.) 

'Future  of  Voting  Machines. 

'The  future  of  voting  machines  is  not  in  doubt.  The 
demand  for  them  is  annually  increasing.  In  fourteen 
states  their  use  has  been  legalized  and  has  stood  the  con- 
stitutional test  in  five  states,  which  includes  every  state 
where  the  question  has  been  raised,  except  Massachu- 
setts, where  the  wording  of  the  constitution  is  peculiar 


248  Testimony  of  Reward  S.  Taylor.  ■ 

903  and  was  given  a  very  strict  construction.  Many  large 
cities  are  already  entirely  equipped  with  them.  Fiftj'- 
five  per  cent,  of  the  voters  of  New  York  State,  outside 
of  Greater  New  York,  use  them.  Chicago  is  seriously 
considering  their  adoption.  It  remains  for  New  Jersey 
to  determine  whether  she  will  for  the  present  continue 
their  use  or  await  the  time  when  her  people  have  been 
aroused  to  the  necessity  of  placing  the  most  efficient 
known  safeguards  around  the  ballot.  The  time  will 
surely  come.  Jerseymen  are  not  different  from  citizens 
of  other  states. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)  S.  D.  Dickinson, 

Secretary  of  State.' 
December  22,  1908." 

904  Election  Commissioners  also  had  advance  sheets  or  a 
certified  copy  of  the  hostile  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court 
on  the  subject  of  voting  machines. 

Counsel  does  not  refer  to  the  Hull  case,  to  which  wit- 
ness refers,  but  a  prior  case,  regarding  which  witness 
says,  "Oh,  we  knew  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State 
had  validated  the  voting  machine."  That  is,  they  treated 
the  voting  machine  ballot  as  a  ballot,  and  in  general  sus- 
tained the  voting  machine  law. 

Witness  also  considered  the  reports  of  the  last  experts 
appointed  by  Judge  Owens. 

Witness  knew  the  weights  of  the  various  machines  ex- 
amined but  does  not  remember  them.  Thinks  the  Winslow 
was  the  heaviest  machine. 

905  "Q.  Refresh  your  recollection  by  referring  to  the  re- 
ports in  the  minutes  deciding  that  the  International 
weighs  665  to  715,  the  Triumph  725,  and  the  Empire  904 
without  the  case,  the  case  weighing  185  pounds,  the  Wins- 
low,  1260  pounds?    A.    Yes,  sir." 

The  strongest  element  that  influenced  the  witness'  mind 
in  favor  of  the  Empire  was  that  the  Empire  was  almost 
identical  with  the  Standard  machine  that  had  been  on 
trial  and  widely  used  and  was  an  established  success.  The 
witness  had  information  as  to  what  machines  had  been 
used  in  different  places. 

906  The  International  had  installed  ten  machines  in  Elgin. 
Witness  does  not  think  the  Winslow  had  installed  a  ma- 
chine anywhere.     The  Triumph  had  a  few  in  the  East. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  249 

The  witness  knew  from  newspaper  clippings  and  voting 
machine  literature  the  percentage  of  Empire  machines  in 
use  as  compared  with  other  machines.  "I  did  not  travel 
around  to  see  whether  the  machines  were  actually  located 
where  it  was  claimed  they  were." 

907  As  to  the  detail  of  the  machine  and  its  operation,  "I 
had  no  opinion  contrary  to  that  of  the  experts,  except  I 
was  strongly  in  favor  of  the  party  key  instead  of  the 
party  lever  for  the  simple  reason  that  in  a  large  machine 
the  lever  pull  would  be  very  heavy,"  and  so  forth. 

The  Winslow  machine  had  a  pull  of  75  pounds. 

Opposition  to  putting  in  voting  machines  was  first  en- 
countered by  witness,  he  thinks,  some  time  after  the  speci- 
fications had  been  drawn  and  advertisements  and  letters 
sent  out. 

908  The  objections  begun  in  a  "moderate  sort  of  way  and 
sort  of  a  protest  against  buying  so  many  machines  at  once 
and  with  some  other  critical  suggestions. ' ' 

The  Bureau  of  Efficiency  objection  appears  to  have 
been  introduced  May  20th,  1911,  and  it  was  about  the 
same  time  that  other  objections  began  to  appear.  The 
Bureau  of  Efficiency  is  a  voluntary  body  and  Julius 
Rosenwald  signed  one  of  those  reports  as  president.  Mr. 
Sykes  was  actively  connected  with  it. 

909  The  Bureau  of  Efficiency  objection  was  to  the  pur- 
chasing of  so  large  a  number  of  machines  and  also  the 
suggestion  that  "maybe  the  machine  was  not  just  the 
ideal  one  to  purchase." 

"Q.  Their  conclusion  is  summed  up  in  two  headings: 
first,  that  the  number  of  machines  purchased  in  the  near 
future  should  be  limited  to  100  and  the  purchase  of  a 
greater  number  postponed  until  after  trial  at  the  pri- 
maries of  1912  and  election  of  November,  1912,  of  this 
limited  number  of  machines,  and.  Second,  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  should  ask  and  secure  the  finan- 
cial authority  of  the  city  in  advance  of  taking  action  to- 
ward the  purchase  of  voting  machines. ' ' 

In  determining  upon  the  purchase  of  1,000  machines 
witness  was  influenced  by  the  fact  that  "that  was  about 
the  number  of  maehiues  that  would  be  required  to  supply 
the  City  under  a  voting  machine  precinct,  that  is,  making 
the  precincts  of  the  proper  size." 

The  Commission  also  considered  in  this  connection  the 


250    Witness'  View  of  Proposed  Conference  With  City. 

report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  New  Jersey,  in  which 
objection  to  a  limited  number  of  machines  is  pointed  out. 

910  The  witness  did  not  consider  as  to  the  question  of  con- 
ferring with  the  City  Council  that  it  was  his  duty  as  Elec- 
tion Commissioner  to  confer  with  the  Council  upon  the 
subject  of  financing  the  purchase  of  voting  machines,  and 
had  been  advised  by  the  Election  Commissioners'  attor- 
ney upon  the  subject,  who  said  that  the  law  laid  the  duty 
of  purchasing  voting  machines  upon  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners,  and,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  1909 
the  City  Council  practically  refused  to  go  fonvard  and 
make  any  appropriation  and  was  standing  still,  the  at- 
torney,— "our  attorney,  thought,  (to  use  his  phrase)  'it 
was  up  to  us'." 

No  particular  method  of  payment  was  mentioned  in  the 
specifications.  The  Commissioners  were  willing  that  the 
voting  machine  companies  should  take  their  chances  on 
the  subject  of  payment. 

911  The  witness  knows,  in  a  general  way,  that  the  City  of 
Chicago  has  had  a  great  many  judgments  pending 
against  it. 

Witness  recalls  Winslow  protest  which  was  read  into 
the  record.  He  gave  it  "very  indignant  consideration  be- 
cause it  libeled  Judge  Owens  and  each  member  of  the 
Board  by  implying  that  Judge  Owens  had  put  the  whole 
deal  through  and  we  were  simply  the  instruments  in  his 
hand." 

Witness  was  also  influenced  by  the  fact  that  the  Wins- 
low  machine  "had  always  been  at  the  foot  or  near  the 
foot  of  standards  given  by  the  experts." 

912  He  was  also  influenced  by  the  rumor  that ' '  Mr.  Winslow 
had  been  having  a  meeting  with  the  Empire  Company  and 
attempted  to  compel  them  to  buy  his  machine  and  his 
supposed  influence  so  as  to  get  him  out  of  the  competi- 
tion, and,  putting  it  all  togethei-,  I  had  a  very  poor  opin- 
ion of  Mr.  Winslow." 

Mr.  Winslow  was  given  an  opportunity  to  bid  on  50 
machines.  His  machine  was  examined  by  the  experts  and 
it  did  not  class  with  the  other  machines. 

Witness  does  not  recall  the  objections  made  by  the  Tri- 
umph Company.  The  Triumph  letter  of  July  3,  1911,  ob- 
jects to  the  time  given  for  examination  of  voting  ma- 
chines. 

(Objected  to  the  Empire  on  the  ground  of  heaviness 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  251 

and  also  to  the  language  of  the  experts  in  criti- 
cising the  Triumph  machine.) 

In  the  early  part  of  the  discussion  of  voting  machines, 
very  considerable  attention  was  given  to  Commissioner 
Czarnecki's  objections  but  "towards  the  latter  part  of  the 
controversy  it  seemed  to  me  that  Mr.  Czaniecki  was  man- 
ufacturing artificial  objections  for  delay  or  to  open  up  a 
new  subject  for  debate  and  toward  the  last  I  got  a  little 
impatient  with  that  kind  of  procedure." 

Witness  was  never  advised  to  select  one  machine  or 
another  except  by  the  agents  and  experts.  No  outside  in- 
fluence was  exercised  upon  him. 

914  Witness  favored  the  voting  machines  because  he  had 
been  a  strong  advocate  of  them  for  years  and  thought 
them  the  final  solution  of  election  corruption.  The  peo- 
ple wanted  them  and  the  witness  was  satisfied  it  was  the 
right  thing  to  do  and  "that  it  was  my  duty,  if  we  found 
an  adequate  machine,  to  buy  it." 

The  witness  thought  that  the  opposition  to  the  voting 
machine  took  a  partisan  aspect, — could  not  say  whether 
before  signing  the  contract.  "They  were  gentle  at  the 
start,  but  this  was  a  fact,  that  nearly  all  of  these  news- 
papers for  ten  years  had  never  deviated  from  the  plan  of 

915  advocating  the  purchase  of  voting  machines,  as  soon  as 
it  became  a  Democratic  measure,  standing  in  the 
threshold,  they  all  reversed  themselves  over  night  and 
commenced  fighting." 

All  of  the  Republican  papers  had  lined  up  in  this  oppo- 
sition. The  Tribune,  the  Record-Herald,  and  the  News; 
possibly  the  Journal  and  the  Inter  Ocean. 

"Q.  What  newspaper  still  appeared  to  applaud  the 
voting  machine  ?  A.  Only  the  Hearst  papers,  the  Exam- 
iner and  the  American. 

Sen.  Landee.  Q.  What  I  would  like  to  ask  is,  were  all 
these  papers  you  mentioned  Republican  papers? 

A.  One  of  them,  the  Journal,  is  not  nominally  a  Re- 
publican paper." 

916  The  Republican  papers  were  not  all  one  way  and  the 
Democratic  papers  all  the  other  way. 

_  Witness  does  not  know  about  the  attitude  of  the  for- 
eign paperSjbut  thinks  the  Election  Commissioners  had 
on  file  clippings  from  the  German  papers  favorable  to 
voting  machines. 

917  Witness'  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  it  took  him 


252  Testimony  of  Howard  8.  Taylor. 

921  eight  to  twelve  minutes  to  read  one  proposition  submit- 
ted to  the  voters  voting  at  the  last  election  and  states 
that  in  considering  one-minute  voting  as  a  requirement  of 
the  Voting  Machine  Law  he  took  into  account  that  the 
public  propositions  were  discussed  in  the  public  press  and 
sometimes  at  public  meetings  to  familiarize  voters  with 
them  on  Election  Day. 

922  Some  difficulty  would  be  experienced  by  a  voter  who  did 
not  read  the  propositions  before  entering  the  booth  with 
a  paper  ballot. 

Witness  identifies  a  paper  handed  him  as  a  sample  vot- 
ing machine  ballot  issued  by  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners at  the  last  fall  election,  1912. 

923  It  was  the  practice  of  the  Election  Commissioners  to  is- 
sue sample  ballots  and  was  prior  to  1911  voting  machine 
project. 

Mr.  Deneen  objects  that  the  paper  offered  is  not  a  sam- 
ple ballot  and  it  does  not  contain  the  names  of  independ- 
ent candidates,  but  simply  a  paper  sent  out  by  Election 
Commissioners. 

They  were  sent  out  to  each  precinct  for  election  day. 

925  They  were  on  view  in  the  Election  Commissioners  office 
where  they  could  be  procured  by  the  citizens. 

It  was  the  custom  to  circulate  ballots  containing  the 
public  proposition.  They  were  sometimes  called  "Little 
Ballots"  and  were  separate  from  the  other  sample  bal- 
lots. 

926  Questions  appearing  on  the  sample  ballot,  numbers  1, 
2,  3,  4,  5,  6  and  7,  were  voted  upon  last  fall  and  appeared 
in  the  order  named  on  the  voting  machine. 

"Q.    Did  you  consider,  in  passing  upon  the  subject  of 
voting  in  a  minute,  that  ordinarily  any  lengthy  statement 
or  proposition  would  be  contained  in  a  ballot?" 
926-935     This  question  was  objected  to  and  after  discussion 
the  objection  was  sustained. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  253 


VOLUME  XII. 

Morning  Session. 
Wednesday,  July  30,  1913. 

Dr.  Howabd  S.  Taylor,  resumed  the  stand  for  further 
cross-examination  by  Mr.  McEwen : 

1033  Witness  knew  the  attitude  of  previous  County  Judges, 
Carter,  Rinaker  and  Houston,  regarding  voting  machines 
only  from  their  public  interviews. 

Mr.  McEwen  asked  witness  whether  these  interviews 
had  influenced  him  in  making  up  his  opinion  in  judging 
voting  machines. 

1034  Objected  to  and  objection  sustained. 

1035  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Hartford,  Connecticut,  is  about  1,000  miles  from  Chi- 
cago and  the  report  from  the  Common  Council  of  Hart- 
ford, Connecticut,  was  published  in  1902,  seven  years  be- 
fore the  voting  machine  matter  was  under  consideration 
by  witness. 

Witness  does  not  think  the  Hartford  report  alluded  to 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine,  or  to  a  9-party,  70-key  ma- 
chine. 

Witness  does  not  recall  in  any  of  the  reports  read  into 
the  record,  any  allusion  to  a  9-party,  70-key  machine. 

1036  AVitness  thinks  that  the  reports  of  experts,  especially 
those  of  Judge  Rinaker,  advised  the  Board  not  to  pur- 
chase the  machines. 

Witness  says  the  Chicago  Journal  is  a  Democratic  pa- 
per, and  that  he  thinks  the  Chicago  Daily  News  is  a  Re- 
publican paper. 

The  witness  was  an  editorial  writer  on  the  Chicago  Ex- 
aminer for  two  years  and  didn't  know  the  politics  of  the 
Daily  News;  thinks  nobody  else  does. 

1037  Does  not  read  the  News  and  does  not  know  that  it  sup- 
ported President  Wilson  and  Vice-President  Marshall 
last  fall.  Witness  was  an  editorial  writer  on  the  Ex- 
aminer four  years  ago  and  that  paper  had  a  presidential 
candidate  of  its  own  then,  named  Hisgin;  the  vice-presi- 


254  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

dential  candidate  was  Graves.     The  witness  was  on  the 
ticket  for  United  States  Senator. 

1038  The  National  ticket  was  called  the  Independent  Party 
ticket. 

Witness  was  also  offered  for  nomination  as  vice-pres- 
ident at  the  Netional  Convention  of  the  Independent 
Party. 

Witness  was  also  a  member  from  Illinois  of  the  Na- 
tional Committee  of  the  Independent  League.  At  this 
time  witness  was  writing  a  series  of  articles  for  the  Chi- 
cago Examiner. 

Witness  helped  write  the  platform  of  the  Independent 
Party. 

1039  George  W.  McCaskrin  of  Kock  Island  was  candidate 
for  Governor  of  Illinois. 

1040  Mr.  Charles  H.  Mitchell  present  attorney  for  Election 
Commissioners  ran  for  State's  Attorney  on  the  Independ- 
ent League  ticket,  probably  in  1908. 

Witness  does  not  think  that  Mr.  Stuart,  Chief  Clerk, 
was  doing  the  political  work  for  the  Examiner  at  this 
time.  Can  only  recall  Charles  A.  Walsh  and  Theodore 
Nelson  w^ho  seemed  to  be  in  charge  of  this  work. 

1041  Mr.  Stuart  was  employed  by  the  newspaper  in  some 
capacity  then  and  supported  the  newspaper  policy  of 
favoring  the  Independent  League  in  1908. 

Witness  reads  the  Examiner  and  American.  He  thinks 
tliem  Democratic  papers  but  does  not  know  that  they  are 
now  supporting  President  Wilson  and  Mr.  Bryan  in  some 
of  their  policies. 

1043  Witness  is  shown  a  cartoon  in  the  Examiner  and  says 
it  indicates  that  the  paper  is  against  them,  Wilson  and 
Bryan. 

The  witness  calls  the  Post  a  Eepublican  paper,  but  does 
not  know  what  candidate  it  supported  last  November. 

1044  The  Tribune  is  a  Progressive  paper  supporting  Roose- 
velt and  Johnson  the  last  time.  The  Record-Herald  is  an 
Independent  paper. 

When  speaking  of  the  Republican  newspapers  oppos- 
ing the  voting  macliine  deal  the  witness  spoke  of  the  tra- 
ditional the  Republican  newspapers. 

1045  Witness  lays  the  blame  for  the  opposition  to  "several 
newspapers,  one  of  which  I  said  nominally  is  Democratic, 
that  is  the  Journal." 

Witness  has  been  a  Greenbacker,  a  Prohibitionist,  a 
Populist,  a  Democratic  and  an  Independent  Leaguer. 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  255 

1046  The  Inter  Ocean  is  a  Republican  paper. 
Notwithstanding  the  attitude  of  these  newspapers,  the 

witness '  predecessor  refused  to  buy  voting  machines. 

The  witness  heard  Mr.  Cannon's  statement  regarding 
visiting  newspaper  offices  and  having  them  send  experts 
to  view  the  machines  and  that  no  adverse  comment  was 
made  regarding  delay  in  purchasing  voting  machines. 

The  witness  thinks  that  the  active  comment  in  the  news- 
papers of  voting  machine  matters  was  confined  each  time 
"only  a  little  while  after  one  of  those  experts'  examina- 
tion." 

1047  They  did  not  continue  throughout  the  year  except  to 
comment  upon  the  facility  and  accuracy  of  election  re- 
turns in  some  machine  cities  like  Buffalo  or  Milwaukee. 
Those  items  would  come  in  whenever  there  was  an  elec- 
tion or  a  number  of  them. ' ' 

The  witness  thinks  the  editorial  policy  of  criticising 
the  Election  Board  for  delay  in  purchasing  voting  ma- 
chines ceased  a  little  time  before  the  present  Election 
Board  came  into  office. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  25th  of  March,  the  witness  moved 
to  have  16  machines  installed  to  create  agitation  in  the 
public  mind  and  to  induce  newspapers  to  publish  it. 

1048  Witness  thought  the  newspapers  and  public  sentiment 
needed  stirring  up. 

The  witness  cannot  recollect  that  any  Chicago  news- 
paper ever  advocated  the  selection  by  the  Election  Board 
of  anv  particular  voting  machine.  Neither  did  the  Grand 
Jury  'Report  of  1908. 

1049  The  newspapers  talked  about  the  gamblers  being  stock- 
holders in  the  Empire  Company.  "I  recall  that  they 
were  cautiously  suggestive  that  we  should  not  buy  many 
machines,  but  gradually  taking  up  the  opposing  attitude." 

Witness  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  he  thought 
that  Commissioner  Czarnecki  was  earnest  in  his  opposi- 
tion to  voting  machines,  but  used  all  tactics  of  a  general 
to  cause  delay. 

1050  His  purpose  was  to  defeat  the  Board  in  making  an 
award  of  the  contract. 

1051  The  witness  had  stated,  in  answer  to  Judge  McEwen's 
question,  that  the  city  was  in  the  habit  of  allowing  judg- 
ments to  go  against  it  and  paying  them  when  it  could. 
Witness  has  been  City  Prosecuting  Attorney  for  ten 
years;  had  nothing  to  do  with  civil  suits  and  only  knew 


256  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

in  a  general  way  from  newspapers  that  a  good  many  judg- 
ments were  entered  against  tlie  city. 

Witness  did  not  have  this  in  mind  in  financing  the  en- 
terprise with  the  Empire  Company  that  they  would  be 
paid  off  by  having  the  city  confess  judgment. 

1052  Witness  believes  that  the  city  could  easily  pay  off  the 
indebtedness  which  would  be  in  the  nature  of  a  declared 
obligation,  and  believed  and  still  believes  that  it  could 
be  paid  from  savings  on  the  machines  in  the  course  of  a 
few  years,  "just  like  other  cities  have  done." 

Witness  supposed  the  city  would  find  ways  and  means 
to  pay  for  the  machines.  The  contract  specified  that 
they  were  to  be  paid  off  "from  funds  available." 

Witness  would  not  say  that  it  meant  they  could  be  paid 
off  from  the  traction  fund.    Has  no  opinion  on  that. 

1053  The  witness  thinks  judgments  against  the  city  would 
bear  5%'. 

Witness  thinks  the  International  machine  had  a  pull  on 
the  party-lever  of  about  25  pounds;  does  not  think  any 
machine  had  so  light  a  pull  as  5  pounds. 

Witness  did  not  regard  the  public  vote  in  1904  in  favor 
of  voting  machines  as  calling  for  the  particular  voting 
machine  selected  by  the  Commissioners. 

1054  Witness  is  confident  that  the  specifications  were  dis- 
cussed with  Commissioner  Czarnecki.  His  recollection  is 
that  Commissioner  Czarnecki  was  present  and  made  sug- 
gested amendments.  "In  fact,  I  think  that  the  minutes 
show  it." 

1055  "I  cannot  say  for  sure  that  Mr.  Czarnecki  was  in  the 
discussion  of  specifications  in  the  Board  rooms." 

The  grand  jury  report  of  1908  influenced  witness  in  re- 
gard to  voting  machines.  It  was  two  years  old  when  the 
witness  took  office,  but  it  was  read  in  the  proceedings 
against  Commissioners  Abbot  and  Hudson  in  the  fall  of 
1910. 

1057  The  witness  thinks  the  grand  jury  report  was  read  in 
these  proceedings. 

"Mr.  Mitchell.  That  was  read  and  they  were  asked  if 
they  had  any  answer  to  make. " 

1058  Witness  thinks  that  nothing  was  said  about  the  grand 
jury  report  in  1908  between  December  9th,  1910,  and 
March  4th,  when  it  was  taken  up  in  a  meeting  of  the 
Board. 

Preceding  the  approaching  election,  friends  and  repre- 
sentatives of  the  candidates  were  "running  into  the  of- 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  257 

fice  with  big  stories  about  what  was  planned  to  be  done 
here  and  there,  colonization,  lodging  house  certificates 
and  all  sorts  of  things";  and  witness  thinks  he  can  recall 
two  or  three  occasions  during  the  discussion  of  these 
subjects  when  the  grand  jury  report  was  referred  to, 
'  *  which  seemed  to  indicate  a  permanent  condition  of  cor- 
ruption in  the  electorate  of  Chicago." 

The  witness  is  shown  the  minutes  of  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  regarding  voting  machines  which  be- 
gin with  the  meeting  of  March  4th. 

"Q.  Don't  those  minutes  recite  the  facts  of  any  official 
discussion  of  this  matter!    A.    As  far  as  official  discus- 

1059  sion  is  concerned,  I  do  not  know  that  we  had  any." 

Witness  thinks  the  matter  of  voting  machines  was 
talked  about  by  the  Commissioners  as  early  as  January, 
1911,  but  does  not  think  that  the  representatives  of  vot- 
ing machines  called  on  the  Commissioners  until  sometime 
in  February. 

Witness  knows  Charles  A.  Walsh  and  that  he  was  a 
member  of  the  Independent  Party. 

1060  Witness  does  not  think  Walsh  called  in  January  or 
February  on  the  Commissioners  about  voting  machines. 
Cannot  recall  that  Walsh  spoke  to  him  (witness),  "but 
once  or  twice  casually." 

Witness  is  asked  whether  Walsh  called  in  January  or 
February,  1911,  with  some  gentlemen  representing  voting 
machines,  and  witness  says,  "I  do  not  think  I  ever  saw 
Mr.  Walsh  in  connection  with  the  voting  machine  question 
outside  of  the  Examiner's  office." 

"Q.  Did  you  see  him  at  the  Examiner's  office?  A.  I 
am  not  sure  about  that,  but  I  think  he  had  a  desk  there 
and  was  engaged  in  some  sort  of  business  connected,  I 
think,  with  the  advertising,  or  something  connected  with 
the  Examiner's  office,  and  I  have  a  vague  recollection 
of  his  passing  some  desultory  remark  a;bout  the  voting 
machine  question,  what  we  were  doing,  what  we  intended 
to  do,  and  so  forth. 

Q.  Don't  you  recall  that  he  and  Mr.  Barr  called  on 
you  at  your  office  over  here,  at  the  Board  office,  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners'  office  and  talked  about  the  voting 
machine ;  Mr.  Barr,  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany?   A.    I  don't  think  he  ever  did. 

Q.  Didn't  they  bring  in  some  gentleman  from  Ot- 
tumwa,  Iowa,  and  introduce  them  to  you  and  the  other 
Commissioners,  Mr.  Walsh  and  Mr.  Barr?     A.     They 


258  Testimony  of  Hoivard  S.  Taylor. 

1061  might  have  done  so,  I  can't  recall  it  at  all;  it  may  have 
been  so. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  any  others  that  were  with  you  then, 
that  were  with  them?  A.  I  don't  recall  the  occasion  at 
all. 

Q.  Mr.  Walsh  was  connected  with  the  Hearst  papers, 
was  he  not?  A.  He  was  for  a  time,  as  I  understand;  I 
never  knew  exactly  the  nature  of  his  employment,  but  I 
think  it  was  in  circulation  or  advertisement,  or  something. 
I  know  he  had  a  desk  in  the  'Examiner'  office  for  awhile. 

Q.  He  had  charge  of  the  Land  Show,  didn't  he,  that 
was  given  here  by  the  '  Examiner '  ?    A.    I  think  he  did. 

Q.  You  and  I  were  both  there,  do  you  remember?  A, 
Yes. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  he  said  to  you  about  the  Empire 
machine?  A.  Oh,  I  can't  remember  a  thing  about  it.  I 
don't  remember  that  he  spoke  to  me  about  the  Empire 
machine  at  all ;  he  may  have  done  so. 

"Q.  Your  memory  is  vague  on  that  matter?  A.  Very 
blank;  I  can't  even  recall  that  he  came  to  the  office  or  that 
he  came  with  any  people.  It  is  entirely  possible  that  he 
may  have  done  so. 

Q.  Did'  you  discuss  this  matter  of  the  voting  machine 
with  Mr.  Andrew  Lawrence  of  the  '  Examiner '  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir,  as  I  recall  it,  and  stated  the  other  day,  I  think  I  had 
two  conversations  only  with  Mr.  Lawrence. 
1062-1064  Q.  About  the  Empire  voting  machine?  A.  No,  I 
don't  think  he  named  or  I  named  any  particular  machine. 
The  last  conversation  was  at  a  date  when,  I  think  it  was 
June,  about  the  middle  of  June;  they  had  a  Democratic 
Editors'  convention  here  in  the  La  Salle  Hotel,  and  there 
were  a  large  number  of  people  in  the  room  and  a  little 
adjunct  of  a  room,  with  open  doors,  opening  into  the  main 
room,  and  Mr.  Lawrence  was  there,  and  Judge  Owens 
was  there ;  and  someone,  either  Judge  Owens  or  Mr.  Law- 
rence, asked  how  we  were  getting  along  with  the  machine ; 
and  I  made  some  reply,  I  can't  recall  what.  I  do  recall 
that  Mr.  Lawrence  said  we  ought  either  to  vote  it  up  or 
vote  it  down,  and  I  remember  that  because  I  was  a  little 
disappointed;  apparently  his  papers  had  been  strongly 
for  the  voting  machines ;  we  had  been  pushing  it,  and  it 
looked  to  me  like  he  was  remarkably  indifferent  about  it. 

Q.  He  was  strong  for  the  voting  machines — do  you 
mean  the  one  vou  had  selected ?    A.    No,  I  don't  think  he 


Witness  Had  Backing  of  Mr.  Lawrence.  259 

ever  mentioned  any  particular  machine  at  all.  I  can't 
recall  that  he  ever  did. 

Q.  Do  you  read  the  Examiner  and  the  American?  A. 
Yes,  sir,  generally,  a  portion  of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  these  papers  have  'been  very  strongly 
for  this  purchase  of  the  Empire  voting  machine  since? 
A.    Oh,  yes. 

Q.  Were  they  not  before!  A.  I  think  they  were  for 
voting  machines;  I  don't  think  they  ever  mentioned  any 
particular  machine. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Andrew  Lawrence  ever  mention  to  you  any 
particular  machine?    A.    I  don't  think  he  ever  did. 

Q.  Haven't  you  discussed  with  him  or  Mr.  Walsh  this 
matter  of  the  Empire  voting  machine — didn't  you  dis- 
cuss the  Empire  voting  machine  with  him  or  Mr.  Walsh 
before  the  contract  was  made?  A.  I  can't  recall  that  I 
ever  did. 

Q.  Will  you  say  you  did  not?  A.  No,  it  may  have 
been  that  I  had  some  talk  that  I  do  not  recall. 

Q.  Doctor,  who  was  it  that  recommended  your  appoint- 
ment as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners? A.  I  presume  I  had — I  don't  know,  but  I  pre- 
sume I  had  the  backing  of  Mr.  Lawrence. 

Q.  Of  the  Chicago  Examiner?  A.  Yes,  I  think  so.  I 
had  known  Judge  Owens,  however,  for  many  years?  He 
was  city  attorney  when  I  was  city  prosecuting  attorney 
and  we  were  warm  personal  friends. 

Q.  Who  recommended  Mr.  Stuart  as  Clerk  of  the 
Board,  if  you  know?    A.    I  don't  know. 

Q.  He  was  employed  by  the  Examiner  at  that  time,  was 
he  not?  A.  I  think  he  was,  though  I  am  not  sure  whether 
he  was  employed  just  as  that  time ;  but  he  had  been  in  and 
out  and  I  only  saw  him  casually,  and  knew  him  very 
slightly. 

Q.  Mr.  Mitchell  is  attorney  for  the  Board;  do  you 
know  who  recommend  him?    A.    I  do  not,  no. 

Q.  He  was  associated  intimately  with  the  Examiner 
people  at  that  time,  was  he  not,  the  Independent  League 
and  others?  A.  Well,  he  had  been  in  the  Independent 
League  and  in  the  Independent  Party,  I  don't  know  how 
intimate  his  association  was  with  the  Examiner. 

Q.  Mr.  Lawrence  had  been  really  the  active  power  in 
the  Independent  Party  here,  the  moving  power,  had  he 
not?  A.  I  am  doubtful  about  that;  I  thought  I  was  the 
man.     I  conceived  of  the  Harmony  project  and  I  wrote 


260  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

the  platform,  and  I  was  the  first  mover  in  the  whole  busi- 
ness ;  I  took  my  plans  to  Mr.  Lawrence  to  see  if  he  would 
come  in,  and  then  I  went  to  see  the  other  Democratic  lead- 
ers to  see  if  they  would  come  in.  I  knew  if  we  did  not  get 
together  we  would  get  beaten. 

Q.  I  don't  want  to  embarrass  you  by  asking  a  personal 
question,  but  you  really  think  that  Mr.  Lawrence  is  sup- 
porting this  Empire  voting  machine  because  you  told  him 
to?  A.  No,  yet  that  may  be  true.  I  was  an  enthusiastic  ad- 
vocate of  the  voting  machine  long  before  Mr.  Lawrence 
came  to  this  town. 

Q.  You  made  a  mistake  in  not  telling  the  other  papers, 
too.    A.    Oh,  we — 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  believe  that  is  all  I  care  to  ask  the  Doe- 
tor." 

1065  Re-cross  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  difference  between  a  9-party,  70-key  machine  and 
the  smaller  one  was  about  the  same  as  between  a  train  of 
five  cars  and  a  train  of  seven  cars.  The  tracks  were  the 
same;  there  was  a  difference  of  weight. 

Witness  remembers  reading  the  reports  of  experts  one 
of  whom  said,  "they  could  make  it  70  keys  or  100  keys, 
or  even  200  keys ;  that  there  was  no  mechanical  obstruc- 
tion to  that. ' ' 

1066  The  witness  thinks  the  Daily  News  has  always  sup- 
ported the  Republican  candidates  for  County  Judge.  The 
County  Judge  is  treated  by  the  different  newspapers  as 
the  head  of  election  machinerj*. 

Witness  does  not  know  what  party  backed  Mr.  Czar- 
necki  for  Election  Commissioner.  Witness  was  not  con- 
sulted. 

1067  The  witness  was  prosecuting  attorney  in  1897  and  for 
ten  years  afterwards;  it  was  an  appointive  office.  The 
witness  held  the  office  under  Mayor  Harrison  and  Mayor 
Dunne ;  all  the  terms  of  Mayor  Harrison,  eight  years,  and 
two  years  under  Mayor  Dunne. 

Voting  machine  examinations  were  held  in  1910. 

Witness  is  asked  if  the  voting  machines  then  examined 
did  not  remain  in  Chicago  until  the  witness  and  his  col- 
leagues were  installed  in  office. 

1068  "A.  Oh,  I  think  not,  sir,  T  think  they  were  taken  away 
by  the  several  parties  and  taken  home." 

After  witness  assumed  office  he  thinks  it  was  Febru- 


Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor.  261 

ary  or  March,  1911,  before  voting  machines  appeared  in 
Chicago. 

The  witness  did  not  consider  the  question  whether  the 
memhers  of  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commis- 
sioners were  experts,  but  assumed  that  they  "who  had 
been  in  the  business  of  inspecting  machines  to  determine 
whether  they  were  legal  or  not,  had  been  in  it  for  years, 
and  ought  to  know,  and  that  their  certification  would  be 
final." 
1069  "Q.  Now,  in  your  evidence  last  Saturday,  you  referred 
to  the  Veeder  meter  and  the  royalties ;  I  think  you  said 
there  were  about  700  voters  and  they  cost  45  cents  each  ? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  gave  you  that  information!  A.  I  can't  tell 
you  now. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  that  was  just  for  the  royalties, 
or  the  royalties  and  the  cost?  A.  I  think  the  word 'roy- 
alty' was  injected  in  there.  I  think  it  is  for  the  finished 
wheels,  the  aluminum  wheels;  that  they  cost  45  cents 
apiece  and  that  is  my  impression,  but  I  would  not  say 
that  is  true  absolutely. 

Q.  Do  you  refer  to  a  single  wheel  or  a  single  meter? 
A.  I  refer  to  the  little  contraption,  the  combination  that 
is  called  'a  meter.'  " 

1071  The  witness  is  asked  by  Representative  Jayne  whether 
the  Commission  had  made  inquiries  to  discover  the  bad 
points  of  the  machines  in  use  elsewhere,  as  well  as  the 
good  points. 

"A.  The  thought  I  had  was  this,  that  we  would  make 
inquiry  in  these  places  and  get  the  results;  if  they  were 
bad  points  they  would  tell  us  and  if  they  were  good  points 
they  would  tell  us,  and  that  out  of  it  we  would  get  the 
correct  statement  of  the  situation. 

Q.  Well,  of  course,  I  take  it  for  granted  from  the  Hart- 
ford Council's  report  that  there  were  no  bad  points;  they 
gave  nothing  but  good  points  in  their  recommendation, 
and  that  is  the  reason  I  asked  the  question.    A.    That  is 

1072  true,  Senator,  of  all  those  cities;  Indianapolis,  for  in- 
stance, it  is  absolutely  unqualified;  Milwaukee  the  same 
way;  in  fact,  wherever  they  were  used.  Buffalo,  Roches- 
ter, Syracuse,  all  those  cities  only  have  one  story  to  tell." 

The  witness  remembers  the  party  lever  in  the  Winslow 
machine  was  a  75-pound  pull.  The  Illinois  experts  only 
give  the  pull  on  two  machines,  25  and  75  pounds.     The 


262  Testimony  of  Howard  S.  Taylor. 

Winslow  was  75.     The  witness  thinks  the  International 
was  the  other  of  the  two. 

One  reason  for  purchasing  voting  machines  was  the 
prevalence  of  political  corruption  in  CMcago  in  the  past. 

1073  This  continued  during  the  witness's  term  as  Election, 
— was  a  common  topic. 

1074  The  witness  does  not  think  that  the  last  general  elec- 
tion was  a  fair  test  for  the  voting  machine. 

"Q.  In  loading  a  load,  would  you  not  load  it  consider- 
ing the  largest  hill  you  had  to  go  up !  A.  No,  I  hardly 
think  I  would ;  that  would  be  true  if  I  were  freighting,  if 
I  were  preparing  for  a  voting  machine  I  would  anticipate 
the  possibilities  of  the  situation  arising  where  we  could 
not  just  use  a  voting  machine  at  a  particular  election." 

1075  Witness  does  not  think  that  every  man  knows  how  he 
is  going  to  vote  as  he  steps  in  to  vote,  but  he  does  not 
think  "it  is  a  part  of  the  duty  of  public  authorities  to 
pander  to  stupidity  and  ignorance. ' ' 

Witness  thinks  that  some  of  the  voting  machines  were 
in  the  City  Hall  during  the  interval  between  the  middle 
of  January  and  the  4th  of  March,  1911.  Thinks  the  agent 
of  the  International  was  there ;  possibly  the  Empire,  and 
they  mav  have  been  all  there. 

1076  Not  a'9-party,  70-key  Empire,  but  the  7-party  30-key 
machine. 

Witness  thinks  the  Empire  Company  was  allowed  to 
put  in  20  machines  for  experimental  purposes  at  the  elec- 
tion of  April  4,  1911,  because  the  voting  machine  com- 
panies could  not  supply  a  sufficient  number  of  machines 
to  take  charge  of  the  situation.  The  Empire  Company 
did  put  in  United  States  Standard  machines. 

1077  Witness'  impression  is  that  the  voting  machines  were 
in  Chicago  and  some  of  them  in  the  Band,  McNally  Build- 
ing between  the  middle  of  January  and  March  4th,  1911, 
and  is  very  positive  that  there  was  "an  Empire  machine 
brought  here  and  installed  in  the  Rand,  McNally  Build- 
ing in  the  office  of  the  Election  Commission  sometime  in 
March." 

The  witness  is  not  sure  whether  it  was  United  States 
Standard  machines,  which  were  afterwards  used  in  the 
election  of  April  4th,  were  in  the  city  when  the  motion 
was  made  at  the  meeting  of  March  25th  to  use  machines 
in  that  election;  is  not  positive.  W^itness  thinks  they 
probably  were  here  because  the  election  was  to  be  April 
4th;  has  no  independent  recollection  about  it. 


Testimony  of  W.  L.  Abbott.  263' 

1078  The  meeting  at  wliicli  the  precincts  in  which  the  ma- 
chines should  be  used  was  determined  on  was  that  of 
March  31,  1911. 

William  L.  Abbott: 

Resides  at  4616  Beacon  street,  Chicago.  For  ten  years 
has  been  chief  operating  engineer  of  the  Chicago  Edison 
Company,  Commonwealth  Edison.  Is  a  member  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees  of  the  University  of  Illinois. 

As  chief  operating  engineer  for  the  Edison  Company, 
has  charge  of  all  power  houses,  the  street  distributing 
lines,  arc  lamps,  incandescent  lamps,  in  fact,  from  the 
production  of  the  electrical  energy  to  the  delivery  of 
them  to  the  customers. 

1080  Witness  is  handed  copy  of  paper  and  is  asked  whether 
he  recalls  when  he  was  appointed  expert. 

"A.  I  presume  May  or  June,  1911."  The  date  of  the 
report  is  June  20th. 

There  were  two  drafts  made  of  the  report,  but  witness 
thinks  the  draft  he  has  here  in  his  hand  is  the  one  sub- 
mitted by  the  experts.    It  is  dated  June  20th. 

1081  Before  witness  was  appointed  he  had  not  been  an  ex- 
pert on  voting  machines. and  had  no  experience  with  vot- 
ing machines  except  to  vote  on  one  at  one  election.  After 
his  appointment  he  began  to  study  voting  machines  and 
made  a  report  concerning  it. 

1082  "Q.  How  long  did  you  give  to  studying  the  machines 
after  your  appointment,  Mr.  Abbott?  A.  As  I  recollect, 
we  spent  some  two  or  three  weeks  on  this  matter,  not  con- 
tinuous time,  however ;  I  believe  I  rendered  a  bill  for  ten 
days '  services.  Examined  four  machines  during  this  time : 
the  Empire,  Triumph,  Winslow  and  International." 

The  report  the  experts  submitted  was  that  the  Empire 
machine  fulfilled  the  requirements  of  the  Voting  Machine 
Law. 

1083  The  report  said  that  the  voting  machine  "fulfilled  all 
the  requirements  of  the  State  Election  Law." 

The  experts  had  a  copy  of  the  law  and  examined  it, 
and  in  the  witness'  judgment  the  machine  fulfilled  the 
requirements  of  the  election  law. 

Whether  you  could  vote  a  split  ticket  in  one  minute  de- 
pends on  the  candidates. 


264        Witness  Acts  as  Expert  on  Voting  Machines. 

1084  "A.  It  would  depend  on  the  kind  of  splitting  which 
the  voter  cared  to  do  and  how  much  splitting  he  would 
care  to  do  before  setting  his  keys. ' '  Also  on  the  number 
of  public  questions. 

Witness  remembers  the  primary  election  of  April,  1912  j 
that  there  was  an  unusually  large  number  of  candidates, 
several  hundred,  to  be  voted  for. 

Witness  could  not  say  whether  a  voter  could  vote  such 
a  ticket,  but  will  say  that  it  is  possible  to  multiply  the 

1085  number  of  candidates  and  the  number  of  offices  and  par- 
ties, so  that  if  the  voter  cares  to  do  a  great  deal  of  split- 
ting it  will  ordinarily — ordinarily  the  voter  will  not  do  it  in 
a  minute. ' ' 

The  report  of  the  experts  says  that  the  material  en- 
tering into  the  construction  of  the  Empire  machine  is 
suitable  for  the  requirements  of  the  machine  and  this  is 
witness'  opinion. 

Witness  looking  at  the  report  says,  the  machine  is  com- 
posed of  steel,  aluminum,  bronze,  and  the  other  composite 

1086  metals.  Aluminum  and  bronze  would  not  corrode.  Steel 
might  if  it  was  not  protected  with  enamel  paint.  Witness 
does  not  remember  how  the  steel  in  the  Empire  machine 
is  protected.  Witness  thinks  enamel  paint  is  a  satis- 
factory protection  of  the  delicate  parts  of  the  machine 
Avhich  are  for  the  most  part  of  bronze  or  aluminum. 

1087  The  question  whether  the  steel  parts  of  the  machine 
were  jjroperly  protected  was  doubtless  considered  and 
if  it  had  not  been  thought  that  the  machines  were  prop- 
erly protected  it  would  have  been  reported  in  the  report. 

The  experts  examined  the  primary  device  on  the  ma- 
chine. Witness  does  not  remember  whether  they  had  a 
IDrimary  ticket  placed  on  the  machine  so  as  to  test  its 
actual  operation  in  a  primary  election. 

Witness  thinks  there  was  placed  on  the  machine  a  ticket 
of  the  previous  general  election.  "That  was  the  ticket 
which  we  considered;  that  was  not  a  primary  ticket,"  is 
witness'  recollection  now.  The  machine  was  considered 
Avith  reference  to  the  general  election  ticket. 

1088  But  the  primary  device  was  also  considered. 

The  witness   asked    Professor    Chamberlain    who    is 
,    present  if  the  report  covers  the  primary  device. 

"Prof.  Chambeelaix.  I  do  not  think  that  any  specific 
reference  to  it  was  made  except  that  it  is  covered  in  the 
statement  that  it  complies  with  the  state  law." 


Mitst  Machine  Comply  With  Primary  Law?  265 

1089  "Prof.  Chamberlain.  In  glancing  over  it  I  see  no  ref- 
erence to  it. ' ' 

1090  There  is  no  specific  reference  to  the  machine  and  the 
primary  law  except  the  general  reference  to  complying 
with  the  primary  law. 

"Q.  Was  the  primary  device  satisfactory  to  you?  A. 
I  believe  it  was;  my  reasons  for  so  stating  is  we  were 
careful  to  enumerate  all  of  the  objectionable  features 
which  we  found  in  the  machine,  and  as  that  is  not  men- 
tioned, I  believe  that  it  must  have  been  satisfactory." 

Witness  has  no  indejjendent  recollection  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

The  report  states  that  there  is  no  mechanism  on  the 
entire  machine  restricting  the  number  of  times  counters 
may  be  inspected  by  the  judges. 

The  machine  is  crated  or  boxed  like  a  piano  box  for 
transporting.  It  would  be  like  moving  a  very  heavy 
piano. 

1091  It  would  seem  that  you  would  have  to  make  provisions 
for  boxing  it  and  moving  it  at  the  polling  places  by  a 
proper  number  of  men;  perhaps  four  good  ordinary 
piano  movers  could  handle  it.  Four  ordinary  men  could 
handle  it,  but  not  so  expeditiously. 

1092  The  Empire  machine  was  not  provided  with  a  party 
lever.  The  Commission  of  experts  recommended  that  it 
should  be,  and  pointed  out  as  an  objectionable  feature 
of  the  machine  that  it  did  not  have  a  party  lever. 

The  party  lever  would  vote  and  at  the  same  time  when 
the  voting  was  finished,  adding  was  finished  also.     This 

1093  matter  was  discussed  in  the  report  and  was  one  of  the 
features  witness  had  in  mind  in  stating  in  the  report  that 
"with  certain  improvements  the  machine  would  perform 
certain  functions." 

The  Empire  machine  had  no  provision  to  restrict  the 
number  of  inspections  by  judges  of  election. 

The  weight  of  the  machine  was  objectionable. 

Witness  believes  the  Empire  machine  had  a  grouping 
device  for  the  women  voting,  for  the  legislative  ticket, 
for  commissioners  and  for  Sanitary  District  Trustees, 
and  so  forth.  Witness  believed  that  the  machine  permit- 
ted voting  for  the  legislative  ticket  according  to  the  law. 

1094  Witness  has  no  independent  recollection  on  this  sub- 
ject, but  simply  assumes  it  did  from  the  papers. 

An  error  made  by  the  voter  could  not  be  corrected  after 


266  Party  Lever  or  Party  Key — Which  Best? 

he  had  pulled  the  party  lever  clear  over ;  it  could  be  be- 
fore that. 

The  witness  is  shown  a  copy  of  the  speech  made  at  the 
City  Club  July  8th,  1911,  in  which  he  said  that  it  was  as- 
sumed that  the  reports  of  the  experts  was  to  be  kept 
secret;  otherwise  they  might  have  modified  their  lan- 
guage. 

1095  This  was  said  because  the  representatives  of  other 
machines  than  the  Empire  were  quite  incensed  by  criti- 
cism of  their  machines  appearing  in  the  report. 

The  witness  is  not  sure  whether  the  Empire  had  a  re- 
leasing knob.  Witness  does  not  recollect  clearly,  but 
thinks  the  purpose  of  the  releasing  knob  was  to  release 
the  lever  and  enable  the  voter  to  change  his  vote.  Witness 
does  not  think  this  matter  is  referred  to  in  the  report. 

1096  "Q.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  recommend  accepting  the 
Empire  machine  on  the  supposition  that  certain  changes 
Avould  be  made  by  the  manufacturer  ?  A.  I  think  it  says 
'with  certain  modifications.'  " 

The  recommendation  to  accept  the  Empire  machine  was 
made  on  the  supposition  that  certain  changes  would  be 
made.  The  witness  does  not  know  whether  the  changes 
were  incorporated  in  the  machines  bought  by  the  Election 
Commissioners. 

Witness  cannot  say  now  whether,  without  the  lever  on 
the  Empire,  he  would  have  preferred  the  Triumph  "which 
has  a  lever  that  indicates  every  vote  for  every  candidate 
and  adds  the  votes";  but  knows  that,  for  himself,  he  was 
very  much  in  doubt  as  to  which  of  those  two  machines 
were  more  preferable. 

1097  Witness  found  all  machines  defective  in  some  particu- 
lar, and  made  recommendations  regarding  it.  The  re- 
port stated  that  if  certain  recommendations  were  followed 
it  would  practically  perform  the  work. 

The  question  whether  the  Commission  could  install  a 
few  machines  at  first  or  1,000  to  begin  with  was  not  pre- 
sented to  the  experts  for  consideration. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  Empire  had  no  party-lever,  but  a  party-key.  Wit- 
ness does  not  know  what  objections  experts  had  to  the 
party-lever.  There  were  objections  to  the  party-lever 
to  which  we  called  attention. 


Testimony  of  W.  L.  Abbott.  267 

1098  Did  not  consider  the  machine  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  party  voter  as  distinguished  from  the  independent 
voter  who  wanted  to  split  a  ticket.  The  report  shows 
the  points  upon  which  they  considered  the  macliine. 

1099  Witness  was  simply  looking  at  the  machine  from  a 
mechanical  standpoint. 

The  report  of  the  experts  did  not  make  specific  recom- 
mendations of  changes  but  pointed  out  such  defects  as  we 
considered  subject  to  criticism. 

1100  Witness  thinks  the  experts  might  safely  have  pointed 
out  advantages  and  defects  without  drawing  conchisions 
as  they  did. 

Witness  thought  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  the  Em- 
pire machine  from  putting  in  a  party  lever.  It  seemed 
to  him  a  simple  thing  to  do.  Witness  thinks  the  expert 
who  demonstrated  the  Empire  machine  said  they  coultj 
put  in  a  party  lever. 

Witness  is  asked  if  he  knew  that  there  was  a  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  a  party  lever  and  says : — 

"A.  Yes,  the  Empire  expert  was  apparently  very 
firmly  convinced  it  was  not  desirable." 

Witness  thinks  that  the  party-key  which  requires  the 
adding  of  totals  by  judges  and  clerks  gave  additional 
chances  for  fraud  over  the  party-lever. 

1101  It  is  much  simpler  also  to  vote  a  straight  ticket  on  a 
lever  machine  than  on  a  party-key  machine. 

The  experts  considered  the  rubber-band  objection.  The 
only  place  where  it  would  be  used  would  be  on  a  machine 
with  a  party-lever  and  would  be  most  effective  on  such  a 
machine. 

Also  considered  the  pull  on  the  party-lever  machine  and 
thinks  it  was  stated  that  the  Winslow  had  a  75-pound  pull, 
a  5-pound  pull  on  the  International,  and  on  the  Triumph 
a  25-pound  pull. 

1102  "Q.  Will  you  tell  us  what  the  limits  of  a  desirable  pull 
are,  taking  into  consideration  the  strength  of  the  voter,  the 
ordinary  voter,  and  the  extraordinary  voter  and  the  in- 
ferior voter?" 

Witness  would  consider  anything  above  50  pounds  ob- 
jectionable and  "the  less  the  pull  the  better."  The  hard- 
ness of  the  pull  depends  on  the  size  of  the  ballot  and  the 
construction  of  the  machine. 

Witness  is  still  of  the  opinion  that  the  party-lever  is 
preferable. 


268  Experts'  Objections  to  Empire  Machine. 

The  experts'  report  speaks  of  there  being  no  provision 
for  limiting  the  number  of  inspections  by  judges  and 
clerks. 

1104  ''Q.  What  objections  did  you  have  in  mind  when  you 
wrote  that!  A.  That  judges  and  clerks  have  access  to 
the  counters  in  a  way  not  authorized ;  they  could  set  them' 
ahead,  certain  counters." 

It  was  possible  that  the  judges  would  have  access  to 
the  counters  in  the  progress  of  voting.  AVitness  didn't 
think  they  would  have  more  access  to  the  counters  during 
the  hours  of  election  than  they  would  to  ballot  boxes: — 
perhaps  less  access. 

Witness  does  not  recall  the  arrangement  of  counters 
on  the  Empire  machine  as  to  the  ability  to  set  them  ahead 
during  election. 

1105  Witness  does  not  recall  that  the  Empire  machine  had 
a  locking  device  that  locked  the  counters  against  manipu- 
lation which  was  in  a  separate  compartment  with  a  sepa- 
rate key;  but  the  criticism  which  appears  in  the  report 
implies  that  the  judges,  if  they  had  access  to  the  counters, 
could  tamper  with  them. 

The  report  was  made  with  reference  to  special  ques- 

1106  tions  submitted.  Where  the  report  does  not  mention 
anything  specific  it  was  intended  by  the  report  that  the 
experts'  answer  was  favorable  to  the  question. 

Witness  thinks  there  is  a  certain  mechanism  in  ma- 
chines with  party-lever  which  permit  the  voter  to  cor- 
rect his  vote  after  he  has  pulled  the  party-lever. 

1107  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

"Q.  The  last  answer  is  just  an  impression, — we  want 
to  get  a  positive  opinion." 

There  was  a  second  examination  of  machines  by  the 
Owens'  experts,  examination  of  a  larger  machine.  Wit- 
ness has  not  seen  the  reports  on  this  last  machine  for  two 
years. 

Witness  thinks  there  is  no  mechanical  objection  to  mak- 
ing the  Empire  machine  of  any  size,  but  with  a  party-lever 
there  would  be  an  increased  pull  for  pulling  the  increased 
number  of  coimters. 

1108  Witness  thinks  that  the  second  examination  by  experts 
was  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  feasibility  of 


Testimony  of  W.  L.  Abbott.  269 

larger  machines.    Witness  has  no  independent  recollec- 
tion about  it. 

1109  Witness  thinks  the  first  Empire  examined  by  the  Owens 
experts  was  a  50-key  machine.  Witness  does  not  re- 
member the  number  of  the  machine  examined  and  does 
not  remember  whether  the  machine  was  made  at  Rochester 
or  Jamestown  and  has  no  memorandum  on  the  subject. 

1110  A  larger  machine  would  take  the  voter  longer  to  oper- 
ate because  it  covers  more  space. 

The  pull  on  the  party-lever  depends  on  the  design  of 
the  machine  and  the  number  of  keys.  It  would  be  hardly 
possible  to  provide  for  a  pull  of  five  pounds  on  a  machine 
that  would  accommodate  the  Chicago    primary    ticket. 

1111  Thinks  a  10-pound  pull  would  be  very  low;  would  con- 
sider that  20  pounds  was  the  lowest. 

The  agent  for  the  Empire  offered  objections  to  the 
party-lever  but  the  experts  favored  it.  Witness  thinks 
that  to  put  a  party-lever  on  the  Empire  machine  would 
require  some  change,  but  not  a  radical  change.  It  would 
be  required  to  be  somewhat  heavier,  something  less  than 
five  per  cent. 
1113  Witness  has  the  impression  that  if  the  judges  had  keys 
to  the  counters  and  access  to  the  counters  they  could 
change  the  counters  and  make  them  register  differently, 
run  them  up  or  run  them  down. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  'keys'  and 
'counters,'  if  I  may  interrupt? 

"A.  Keys  so  that  you  can  see  that  they  may  move  by 
the  hand;  if  they  have  those  keys  to  them,  so  that  they 
can  be  moved,  of  course  they  might  be  moved." 

1115  Asked  as  to  the  intention  of  the  report  to  comment 
on  what  is  not  pointed  out  as  a  defect,  witness  says,  "Per- 
haps a  better  answer  would  be  that  we  pointed  out  any 
defects,  any  and  all,  that  came  to  our  attention." 

1116  It  would  be  a  reasonable  supposition  that  as  to  things 
the  experts  overlooked  they  could  not  comment  upon  in 
their  report. 

The  use  of  a  party-lever,  instead  of  a  party-key  would 
tend  to  simphcity  and  prevention  of  error. 

1117  The  witness  has  had  practical  experience  in  shops  as 
Avell  as  a  technical  education  in  engineering  and  mechan- 
ical engineering. 

The  witness  understood  that  the  report  made  by  the  ex- 


270  Testimony  of  W.  L.  Abbott. 

perts  was  to  be  considered  by  the  Election  Commissioners 
in  concluding  the  purchase  of  voting  machines. 

The  witness  is  obliged  to  base  his  statement  as  to 
whether  the  Empire  machine  fulfills  the  requirements  of 
the  law  upon  his  report  and  so  doing  says  it  does. 
1118  According  to  the  report,  the  Empire  machine  weighs 
1150  pounds.  The  Triumph  1260.  A  difference  of  110 
pounds.  The  Empire  has  a  party-key,  the  Triumph  a 
party-lever. 

Placing  a  party-lever  on  the  Empire,  the  witness  has 
estimated,  would  add  to  its  weight  about  5  per  cent,  and 
make  no  practical  difference  in  the  machines  as  to  weight. 

1118  "Q.  Have  the  Commissioners  ever  called  you  back 
to  inspect  the  machines  that  were  shipped  and  sold  to  the 
city?  A.  We  examined  the  larger  machine  about  a  month 
after  we  made  this  report. ' ' 

The  experts  examined  only  one  large  machine. 

1119  Witness  does  not  know  that  any  other  of  the  machines 
purchased  by  the  City  of  Chicago  was  ever  examined. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  think  the  evidence  will  show  that  one 
of  the  three  of  them  did." 

In  saying  that  "this  machine"  complies  with  the  law, 
the  witness  means  that  the  machine  examined  by  Judge 
Owens'  experts,  not  the  one  in  the  hearing  room. 

Witness'  appointment  was  not  solicited  by  him.    Wit- 

1120  ness'  first  thought  regarding  the  matter  was  the  Chief 
Clerk  Stuart  who  recommended  witness  to  Judge  Owens. 

In  their  first  report.  Judge  Owens'  experts  stated  that 
all  four  machines  examined  by  them  complied  with  the 
State  law. 

In  the  last  report,  but -one  machine  was  examined,  be- 
cause the  one  question  put  up  to  them  was  "Is  the  large 
machine,  the  70-kev,  a  practical  machine,  the  same  as  the 
50-key  was?" 

It  was  the  only  machine  the  experts  were  asked  to  ex- 
amine and  report  on.  The  examination  of  the  one  ma- 
chine occurred  one  or  two  months  after  the  examination 
of  the  four  machines. 

1121  Witness  does  not  remember  the  number  of  the  machine 
the  experts  examined  the  second  time,  nor  whether  it 
was  made  at  Rochester,  or  Jameston,  New  York. 


Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamberlain.  271 

Afternoon  Session. 
Wednesday,  July  30,  1913. 

1122  Paul  M.  Chamberlain: 

Resides  427  Diversey  Parkway,  Chicago.  Is  a  con- 
sulting engineer,  electrical,  mechanical,  hydraulic,  and 
civil.  The  firni  name  is  Chamberlain  &.  Howell,  1719 
Marquette  Building.  Was  appointed  expert  to  investi- 
gate voting  machines  by  Judge  Owens,  witness  thinks 
early  in  June  1911. 

1123  Witness  understood  there  was  to  be  an  examination 
of  voting  machines  and  made  application  to  the  Commis- 
sioners for  appointment  on  the  commission  of  experts. 
The  application  was  made  to  Chief  Clerk  Stuart. 

Witness  first  made  inquiry  about  his  appointment  of 
the  former  attorney  for  the  Election  Board,  W.  W. 
Wheelock,  who  referred  witness  to  Mr.  Stuart. 

1124  Mr.  Wheelock  was  attorney  for  the  Empire  machine. 
Witness  saw  nothing  of  him  during  the  time  he  acted 
as  expert.  Witness  understands  that  Mr.  Wheelock 
drew  the  contract  for  the  purchase  of  the  Empire  voting 
machine. 

Witness  had  no  previous  experience  with  voting  ma- 
chines and  had  never  examined  one.  Witness  was  en- 
gaged about  14  days  in  his  work  as  expert.  Does  not 
remember  how  many  days  he  was  engaged  in  examining 
the  Empire  machine. 

That  the  Empire  voting  machine  complied  with  the 
State  law  "was  our  conclusion  in  the  report." 

1125  Whether  a  voter  could  vote  a  split  ticket  in  one  minute 
or  not  on  the  Empire  Voting  Machine,  depends  upon  the 
rapidity  with  which  the  voter  worked.  Witness  believes 
it  possible  to  do  so. 

With  such  a  ticket  as  Chicago  had  at  the  April  elec- 
tion in  1912,  witness  does  not  think  that  all  the  voters 
would  vote  within  a  minute. 

Witness  was  in  Chicago  in  April,  1912,  when  the  pri- 
mary occurred  but  did  not  vote  on  a  voting  machine. 

1126  Witness  knows  there  were  a  large  number  of  candi- 
dates and  thinks  that  with  proper  preparation  before 
the  voter  could  vote  such  a  ticket  in  a  minute,  that  is. 
by  instruction  and  by  perusal  of  the  sample  face  of 
the  machine.     ■ 


272  Views  on  Minute  Voting, 

1127  If  a  voter  would  take  a  sample  ballot  and  mark  it  just 
as  he  intended  to  vote  the  witness  thinks  he  might  vote 
in  a  minute.  At  the  general  election  of  1912  48 
men  contested  for  nomination  for  County  Commission- 
ers and  the  same  proportion  for  the  Sanitary  District 
Trustees,  and  Judges.  To  do  this  he  would  need  to  have 
some  such  aid  as  the  marking  of  a  sample  ballot. 

The  witness  makes  the  same  answer  as  to  primaries. 

The  witness  concurred  in  the  conclusion  of  the  experts 
that  suitable  material  had  been  used  in  the  construction 
of  the  Empire  machine. 

1128  Looking  at  the  report,  the  witness  says  that  materials 
used  were  steel,  aluminum,  bronze  and  other  composi- 
tion metal. 

The  metal  in  the  machine  is  protected  from  corrosion. 
The  exterior  is  enameled  and  such  parts  of  steel  as  might 
corrode  under  exposure  to  the  weather  are  protected 
from  the  weather  by  the  case.  The  steel  parts  are  put 
in  place,  usually,  with  some  small  coating  of  oil. 

1129  Witness  does  not  know  the  particular  process  which 
was  employed  in  the  Empire  machine. 

■  Witness  had  satisfied  himself  that  the  machine  had 
been  protected  from  rust  so  it  would  not  rust  out  and 
become  inefficient. 

1130  As  to  the  machinery,  witness  could  not  say  now 
whether  the  parts  were  covered  with  aluminum  paint, 
enamel  paint,  but  thinks  perhaps  that  some  of  them  were. 
There  were  parts  that  were  apparently  covered  with 
nothing.    In  fact,  there  is  nothing  which  could  be  put  on 

1131  steel  parts  and  still  provide  for  the  proper  mechanical 
movement  to  protect  them  from  the  weather. 

1132  The  parts  of  a  machine  to  which  witness  refers  are 

•  "A.  The  metal  straps,  steel  straps,  the  pins  separ- 
ating the  different  restricting  spaces  in  which  the  wedges 
pass,  and  I  should  say  the  levers  provided  for  the  inter- 
locking; some  of  these  steel  parts  were  galvanized.  I 
recall  at  this  moment  that  such  parts  as  depend  on  the 
accurate  adjustment  and  hard  surface,  are  in  no  ma- 
chine coated,  plated  or  enameled." 

Witness  examined  the  primary  device;  did  not  have 
a  primary  ticket  on  the  machine  and  did  not  experiment 
about  voting  at  primaries  with  an  actual  ticket,  but  tried 
to  cover  all  the  conditions  which  might  arise. 

1133  Witness  remembers  that  in  using  the  machine  at  pri- 


Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamberlain.  273 

mary  elections  the  party  keys  were  covered  up.  The 
machine  is  adjusted  according  to  the  voter's  declaration 
of  party  affiliation  by  one  of  the  officers  of  the  election 
by  manipulating  a  lever  pointing  to  the  party  which  wit- 
ness things,  is  printed  on  a  slip. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  name  of  the  party  does  not 
appear  but  instead  the  figures  0,  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  so  forth, 
as  many  numerals  as  there  are  parties. 

1134  When  the  lever  is  adjusted  properly  the  voter  has  ac- 
cess to  all  the  candidates  of  the  party  of  his  declared 
affiliation. 

It  is  witness'  recollection  that  if  the  lever  is  fixed  at 
zero  the  voter  cannot  vote  at  all. 

1135  Witness  thinks  this  was  one  of  the  requirements  of 
the  state  law. 

The  report  of  the  experts  did  not  refer  to  the  pri- 
maries, except  that  it  stated  that  the  machine  complied 
with  the  state  law,  with  certain  objections. 

The  Empire  machine  has  no  restriction  on  the  number 
of  times  the  counters  may  be  inspected  by  the  judges. 

1136  The  machine  is  arranged  for  transportation  by  put- 
ting it  in  a  box  and  is  as  conveniently  moved  from  the 
box  and  placed  in  voting  position  at  the  polls  as  a  piece 
of  mechanism  of  that  weight.  AVitness  thinks  it  would 
require  four  ordinary  men  to  handle  a  machine.  The 
machine  weighs  1180  pounds  with  the  box.     904  pounds 

1137  Avithout  the  box. 

The  Empire  machine  has  no  party  lever.  The  matter 
was  discussed  by  the  experts  and  there  were  advantages 
and  disadvantages  connected  with  having  a  party-lever. 
With  a  party-key  the  mechanism  is  less  complex  than 
with  a  party-lever.  The  time  for  voting  is  somewhat 
less  with  a  party-lever  than  with  a  party-key,  and  the 
party-lever  has  the  advantage  of  totalling  the  votes  cast. 

The  report  of  the  experts  on  the  Empire  machine  com- 
ments on  the  absence  of  a  party-lever. 

1138  Witness  reads  from  the  report:  as  follows: 
"Because  of  the  absence  of  the  party -lever,  which  in 

other  machines  operates  each  of  the  individual  keys  of 
that  party,  split  voting  with  the  Empire  must  be  done 
by  pulling  down  individually  the  keys  which  represent 
the  candidates  to  be  voted  for;  and  this  on  a  70-key- 
board  will  scarcely  be  done  within  the  one  minute's  time 
permitted  each  voter  in  the  voting  booth.    It  also  makes 


274  Disadvantages  of  Party  Key. 

it  necessary  to  add  the  ballots  cast  on  the  party-key  to 
those  cast  on  the  individual  keys.  These  disadvantages 
apply  to  any  machine  which  has  a  party-key  instead  of 
a  party-lever.  The  advantage  of  the  party-key,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  simplicity  of  instruction  to  voter  and 
less  mechanical  complication." 

The  weight  would  be  a  little  less  without  a  party-lever 
and  it  would  be  cheaper  to  make. 

1139  To  apply  a  party-lever  to  the  Empire  machine  it  would 
be  necessary  to  supply  the  parts  necessary  for  inter- 

•     locking,  and  adding. 

To  use  a  party-lever  on  the  Empire  machine  would 

require  appliances  connected    with    the    lever    and    the 

name  of  each  candidate  to  be  voted  for.     They  would 

■  have  to  be  interlocked  and  some  of  the  mechanism  of 

the  present  machine  would  be  applicable. 

1140  Witness  does  not  know  whether  the  present  parts  of 
the  machine  utilized  in  a  machine  with  a  party-lever 
would  have  to  be  changed  or  not ;  it  is  quite  possible  that 
the  lever  attachment  could  be  changed  to  cooperate  with 
the  mechanism  as  it  now  stands. 

1141  There  would  have  to  be  some  connection  between  each 
key  of  the  machine  and  the  party-lever  mechanism,  but 
it  might  not  necessarily  be  a  separate  piece  from  each 
party  key  running  to  the  lever.  70  keys  or  700  keys 
could  be  so  arrangetl  that  the  movement  of  a  bar  up- 
ward turns  them  all. 

Whether  the  application  of  a  party-lever  to  the  Em- 
pire machine  would  add  considerably  to  the  weight  is 
entirely  a  matter  of  design  and  constriiction. 

1143  Witness  would  be  surprised  if  a  party-lever  mechan- 
ism could  be  put  on  a  machine  which  would  weigh  less 
than  15  pounds,  but  might  take  15  pounds  from  other 
parts.  Would  be  much  surprised  if  the  change  from  the 
party-key  to  the  party-lever  would  increase  the  weight 
more  than  100  pounds. 

The  machine  examined  by  the  experts  had  a  grouping 
device;  all  were  examined.  The  machine  also  examined 
was  arranged  to  vote  the  legislative  ticket  according  to 

1144  the  law  of  Illinois.  It  also  had  a  device  restricting  the 
women's  votes  to  Trustees  of  the  University  of  Illinois. 

The  witness  thinks  an  error  in  voting  could  not  be 
corrected  by  the  voter  on  the  machine  the  experts  exam- 
ined. 


Experts'  Report  Not  Dated.  275 

Tlie  witness  here  goes  to  the  machine  and  says  that  a 
certain  knob  pointed  out  is  the  releasing  knob.  Witness 
thinks  this  was  used  to  allow  the  voter  who  has  pulled 
down  the  party-key  and  then  afterwards  decided  to  vote 
individually  to  pull  the  releasing  knob,  turn  back  the 
party-key  and  vote  individually. 

1146  The  witness  is  asked  if  the  Empire  machine  was  not 
recommended  by  .the  experts  on  the  supposition  that 
certain  changes  were  to  be  made  by  the  manufacturer! 

"A.  We  state  in  the  report  'it  will  be  seen  from  the 
foregoing,  that  each  machine  possessed  points  of  excel- 
lence and  certain  defects  which  are  not  common  to  all; 
some  of  these  defects  are  not  vital  and  most  of  them  can 
be  overcome  by  the  designers.'  " 

In  relative  convenience  of  handling,  the  Triumph  is 
placed  first,  the  International  second,  the  Empire  third. 

Witness  says  he  knows  that  changes  were  made  in  the 
Empire  machine  after  it  was  examined  by  the  experts 
and  before  it  was  bought. 

1147  Witness  thinks  the  aperture  for  voting  for  irregular 
candidates  was  enlarged  and  thinks  that  on  the  70-key 
machine  the  roll  device  was  corrected. 

The  first  examinations  of  the  machines  was  made  by 
the  witness  some  time  in  June,  1911.  The  Empire  ma- 
chine examined  was  a  7-partj',  50-key  machine.  Later 
a  9-party,  70-key  machine  was  examined.  The  latter 
examination  occurred  about  July  20th,  1911.  The  second 
report  was  not  dated.     This  was  an  oversight. 

1148  Witness  remembers  that  in  the  public  press  of  the  2l8t 
it  was  stated  that  the  report  had  not  been  dated  and 
witness'  books  show  that  he  rendered  service  to  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  on  July  20th. 

Witness  is  shown  the  file  marks  on  the  paper  in  Dr. 
Taylor's  handwriting,  "Filed  July  27-11,"  but  can  only 
testify  as  he  has  already  testified  on  the  question  of  date. 
The  report  was  made  in  the  Board  rooms  on  the  day 

1149  the  examination  was  made.  When  finished,  the  report 
was  sealed  and  addressed  to  Judge  Owens  and,  witness 
thinks,  was  handed  to  Chief  Clerk  Stuart.  Witness  has 
no  independent  recollection  of  that. 

On  July  20th,  there  had  been  no  change  made  in  the 
machine  examined  in  regard  to  judges  getting  access  to 
the  counters. 

Witness  does  not  know  the  number  of  the  machine 


276   Number  of  Empire  Machine  Examined  Not  Known. 

examined  July  20th,  or  Avlaether  it  was  made  in  Kochester 
or  Jamestown,  New  York.  Witness  has  the  impression 
that  it  was  made  at  Jamestown. 

Witness  does  not  remember  the  number  of  the  machine 

1150  examined  in  June,  and  cannot  state  whether  it  was  made 
in  Rochester  or  Jamestown.  He  cannot  state  that  it 
was  not  a  United  States  Standard  machine  in  either  case. 

Witness  does  not  recall  a  dinner  at  the  Athletic  Club 
before  he  was  appointed,  with  some  gentlemen,  where 
the  voting  machine  matter  was  talked  over,  and  to  the 
best  of  his  belief  witness  was  not  at  such  dinner.  Wit- 
ness remembers  only  one  occasion  during  this  period 
being  at  the  Athletic  Club.  This  was  with  Mr.  Abbott 
and  Mr.  Wooley.  To  the  best  of  his  recollection,  witness 
never  had  a  meal  with  Mr.  Stuart  at  any  time. 

1151  Witness  naturally  talked  with  Mr.  Stuart  about  voting 
machines  before  his  appointment  and  Stuart  wanted  to 
know  what  witness'  qualifications  were.  Witness  told 
Stuart  that  he  had  never  examined  the  voting  machine. 
As  far  as  witness  recollects,  they  did  not  discuss  any 
particular  machine.  Witness  cannot  say  whether  they 
discussed  how  many  were  exhibited. 

1152  The  Triumph,  International  and  the  Winslow  machines 
have  party-levers. 

The  experts  must  have  read  the  specifications  before 
examining  the  machine.  Witness  remembers  that  the 
specifications  required  bidders    to    furnish   blue   prints. 

1153  Witness  does  not  know  whether  or  not  each  bidder  filed 
such  with  the  Election  Commission. 

Witness  recollects  that  there  was  a  complaint  made 
about  the  experts  not  having  opened  the  blue  prints,  and 
so  forth  of  the  International  machine.  To  the  best  of 
witness'  belief,  the  experts  neither  opened  nor  consulted 
any  blue  prints.  It  was  evidently  the  experts'  judgment 
at  that  time  that  the  machine  itself  answered  every  pur- 
pose that  the  blue  prints  would. 

"Q.     You  are  a  mechanical  engineer?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  Will  you  say  that  blue  prints  would  not  have 
been  of  great  advantage  to  you  in  examining  these  ma- 
chines 1  A.  I  will  say  that  if  the  blue  prints  would  have 
been  a  great  advantage  to  me  I  would  have  called  for 
them." 

1154  To  the  best  of  witness'  belief  blue  prints  would  not 
have  been  of  great  advantage  to  him. 


Blue  Prints.  277 

The  experts  did  not  take  the  machine  entirely  apart  so 
that  they  saw  each  part. 

The  blue  prints  might  aid  somebody  in  telling  what  pur- 
ports to  be  inside,  but  the  blue  prints  would  not  tell  you 

1155  what  was  inside  or  it  wouldn't  tell  you  the  mechanism. 

Blue  prints  are  required  in  machines  which  you  make 
or  design  and  are  customary  where  it  is  desirable  and 
necessary.  Many  times  blue  prints  are  not  used  for  any 
purpose  except  construction.  Frequently  they  are  an  aid 
in  finding  out  what  the  design  of  the  part  may  be. 

Witness  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  requirement  in  the 
specification  calling  for  blue  prints.  Witness  never  saw 
a  voting  machine  before  examining  one  as  expert  for 
Judge  Owens. 

1156  Witness  knew  the  principle  of  voting  machines,  but  had 
never  seen  one  in  operation.  In  the  absence  of  a  demon- 
strator or  representative  of  the  machine,  the  experts 
would  probably  have  been  assisted  by  the  printed  descrip- 
tion. 

1157  The  experts  had  the  machine  before  them  and  repre- 
sentatives of  the  different  makes. 

The  witness,  who  is  at  the  machine  in  the  room,  de- 
scribes how  the  voter  votes  on  the  voting  machine,  and 
illustrates.  He  closes  the  curtain,  sets  the  keys  to  reg- 
ister his  vote,  pulls  the  voting  lever,  comes  out. 

1158  No  voting  is  done  until  the  voter  pulls  the  voting  lever ; 
pulling  the  key  down  sets  the  register  for  movement. 

1159  Witness  again  describes  the  operation  of  the  machine. 
Witness'  attention  is  called  to  the  ballot  for  the  regular 
election,  Socialist  ticket.  Hugo  A.  Kahn  is  running  for 
the  Legislature. 

Q.  If  a  man  desires  to  vote  a  straight  Socialist  ticket 
and  walks  in  and  votes  a  straight  Socialist  ticket,  how 
many  votes  will  Mr.  Kahn  get.  It  says  on  the  ballot  1} 
and  li,  doesn't  it?  A.  It  is  possible  "to  vote  three  votes 
for  him. 

Q.    Yes,  how?    A.    Here,  and  here,  and  here. 

1161  "Here,  and  here,  and  here"  means  pulling  down 
keys  16-D,  17-D,  and  18-D. 

1162  In  regard  to  voting  the  legislative  ticket  witness  says 
"the  machines  can  be  set  so  that  19,  21,  and  22-D  could 
not  be  pulled  down  and  thinks  he  could  set  the  keys  in 
that  way. 

1164    The  demonstrators  of  the  machines  before  Judge  Ow- 


278  Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamberlain. 

ens'  experts  did  not  demonstrate  about  frauds  that  could 
be  committed  on  their  machines  and  the  experts  were  not 
permitted  to  show  what  could  be  done  with  competing 
machines.    There  was  no  public  hearing. 

1165  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  does  not  know  who  wrote  the  lead  pencil  marks 
"July  27-11"  at  the  time  of  the  supplementary  report. 
The  witness  did  not. 

The  supplementary  report,  the  second  report,  is  con- 
fined to  a  70-key,  9-party  machine,  and  this  refers  to  a 
particular  machine  examined  at  that  time. 

1166  Witness  identifies  in  the  report,  paragraph  five,  the 
recommendation  of  enlargement  of  the  slides  for  indi- 
vidual voting.  Then  follows  the  recommendation  to  omit 
the  releasing  attachment  of  the  paper  roll  mechanism. 

1167  The  experts  found  tliat  the  mechanical  principles  of  the 
Empire  were  applicable  to  70  keys  or  100  keys,  or  double 
that  number.  As  a  machine  it  works  just  as  well  with  a 
larger  or  with  a  lower  number. 

The  absence  of  a  party-lever  in  the  Empire  machine  is 
not  considered  by  the  witness  a  fault  of  construction.  As 
to  whether  the  party-lever  was  preferable,  it  would  be  a 
matter  of  difference  of  opinion. 

Witness  cannot  say  what  was  in  the  experts'  mind  when 
they  wrote  the  feature  of  the  report  relating  to  the  limi- 
tations of  inspections  b.v  judges.    At  present  the  witness 

1168  cannot  see  any  disadvantage  in  judges  being  able  to  have 
access  to  the  counters. 

The  Empire  machine  had  a  locking  device  designed  to 
lock  the  counters  so  they  couldn't  be  operated  except  by 
unlocking  the  compartment  and  releasing  the  locking  de- 
vice. To  get  at  this  locking  device  would  require  con- 
nivance of  the  judges  with  the  men  at  the  warehouse. 

1169  So  far  as  the  weight  of  their  parts  was  concerned,  wit- 
ness thinks  that  all  four  machines  exhibited  were  worked 
out  excellently.  Whatever  fault  was  found  is  pointed  out 
in  the  report. 

1170  As  to  correcting  erroneous  votes  the  voter  has  an  op- 
portunity to  adjust  any  of  the  levers  to  satisfy  his  de- 
sires, with  the  exception  that,  having  once  voted  for  in- 
dividuals he  cannot  then  decide  to  vote  the  party  key,  but 
must  vote  on  all  the  keys  to  vote  a  straight  ticket. 


Mr,  Chamberlain  Knew  Mr.  Wheelock.  279 

If  he  pulls  the  party  key  and  then  decides  he  would  like 
to  split,  the  releasing  lever  enables  him  to  do  that.  The 
releasing  lever  also  enables  a  man  who  goes  into  a  ma- 
chine and  fails  to  vote,  to  release  the  curtain  so  that  it 
goes  back. 

1171  The  witness'  recollection  as  to  voting  on  the  ma- 
chine at  a  primary  is  that  if  the  party-lever  be  set  at  zero 
the  voter  cannot  vote  for  any  party,  and  that  if  the  lever 
is  set  at  any  party  all  other  parties  are  cut  out. 

1172  As  to  applying  for  appointment  as  expert  witness  knew 
Wheelock  as  having  been  attorney  for  the  Election  Board 
in  former  years.  He  does  not  know  when  he  learned 
that  Mr.  "Wheelock  was  attorney  for  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company,  but  presumes  it  was  before  this  time. 
Mr.  Wheelock 's  office  is  in  the  same  building  as  witness 
and  witness  called  on  him  there. 

Witness  testified  before  the  grand  jury  as  follows 
(Mr.  McEwen  reads  from  Grand  Jury  Report) : 

"  'Q.  How  did  you  learn  that  Mr.  Wheelock  repre- 
sented the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company?'  Did  you 
answer:  'A.  He  told  me,  when  I  went  to  see  him  rela- 
tive to  this.'?    A.     That  is  probably  correct. 

"Q.  'Did  you — at  the  time  you  called  upon  him  did  he 
tell  you  the  procedure,  how  you  should  proceed  in  order 

1173  to  get  on  this  Board'?  'A.  Well,  he  told  me  the  proper 
official  to  see — ' 

"Q.  'And  that  was  the  clerk  of  the  Board'?  A.  'The 
Clerk  of  the  Board,  yes. ' 

"Q.  'How  long  had  you  knowii  Mr.  Wheelock  before 
that?'    'A.    Oh,  I  had  known  him  for  many  years. ' 

"Q.    'You  then  called  on  Mr.  Stuart?    A.    Yes.'" 

Witness  also  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  asking  appointment. 

Mr.  Stuart  asked  witness  to  give  him  a  list  of  people 
who  knew  of  witness'  work  and  that  Stuart  would  look 
it  up.  Witness'  appointment  by  Judge  Owens  must  have 
been  more  than  a  week  after  his  interview  with  Mr.  Stu- 
art, because  some  of  witness'  out-of-town  friends  whose 

1174  names  he  gave  to  Stuart  advised  the  witness  they  had 
received  letters  regarding  witness'  professional  ability, 
honesty,  and  so  forth. 

Witness  did  not  meet  Mr.  Wheelock  during  the  process 
of  making  his  report,  nor  in  any  way  to  discuss  the  ma- 
chine matter.     Witness  saw  Mr.  Wheelock  in  the  cor- 


280  Witness  Exammes  200  Machines. 

ridors  frequently,  but  did  not  talk  to  him  about  the  ex- 
amination of  the  machine,  not  after  his  appointment,  nor, 
the  witness  thinks,  at  the  time  he  asked  Mr.  Wheelock 
about  the  procedure  for  securing  the  appointment.  Wit- 
ness did  not  talk  to  Mr.  Wheelock  after  appointment  and 
prior  to  the  report  about  the  machine  and  Mr.  Wheelock 
never  at  any  time  asked  him  "to  do  one  thing  or  the 
other. ' ' 

1175  Witness'  judgment  was  formed  independently  upon 
his  examination. 

The  process  of  Sheridizing  is  used  to  prevent  metal 
from  rusting.  It  makes  the  metal  smoother  and  is  used 
on  the  interior  of  electric  conduits  a  great  deal. 

Witness  does  not  recall  finding  Sheridized  metal  in  this 
Empire  machine  examined. 

1176  In  examining  the  machines,  the  experts  took  into  ac- 
count the  liability  to  rust  and  tried  to  cover  all  prob- 
abilities of  exposure. 

An  attachment  limiting  the  number  of  inspections  can 
be  put  in  the  Empire  machine ;  also  the  party  lever. 

The  witness  had  to  do  with  examining  machines  that 
were  delivered.    Witness  examined  some  200  machines. 

"Q.  What  did  you  examine,  in  a  general  way?  A. 
Well,  the  machines  were  taken  out  of  the  cases  and  set 
in  voting  position,  a  voting  position,  counters  were  in- 
spected to  see  that  they  were  at  zero,  and  a  series  of 
voting  done  on  the  machine  to  see  that  the  mechanism 
was  in  good  working  order  and  that  the  interlocking  sys- 
tem performed  its  function — " 

Witness  found  that  nearly  all  machines  examined  per- 
formed these  functions.  Witness  thinks  198  of  the  ma- 
chines passed  inspection.  Witness  thinks  that  one  ma- 
chine was  damaged  in  transit  and  that  another  machine 
did  not  show  up.  Witness  thinks  he  afterwards  exam- 
ined two  machines  to  fill  out  the  200. 

1178  Witness  also  in  one  election  went  to  the  different  poll- 
ing places  to  see  that  the  machines  were  set  up  properly 
and  in  working  order.  Witness  is  a  practical  machinist 
and  has  worked  in  the  shop.  He  is  a  graduate  of  Mich- 
igan Agricultural  College,  Engineering  Department,  and 
of  Cornell  University. 

Witness  cannot  recall  how  the  experts  determine  the 
weight  of  the  machine ;  did  not  personally  weigh  them. 

1179  The  weight  of  the  machine  given  in  the  report  was  that 


Testimony  of  P.  M.  ChamberlaAn.  281 

of  a  7-party,  50-key  machine.    Did  not  give  the  weight  in 
the  second  report  on  the  9-party,  70-key  machine. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  will  say  that  we  will  show  that  the 
70-key  is  950  pounds,  the  machine  net ;  1120  gross,  which 
is  with  the  box  on." 

1180  Witness  is  asked  whether  he  considers  himself  a  vot- 
ing machine  expert;  says  that  he  is  intimately  familiar 
with  many  types  of  machines  employing  similar  mechan- 
ical principles  and  devices  as  are  found  in  voting  ma- 
chines, and  so  far  as  being  an  expert  on  mechanism  pre- 
sumes he  could  qualify. 

1181  Witness  thinks  he  could  build  a  voting  machine  involv- 
ing the  principles  of  the  machines  examined  by  the  ex- 
perts. Not  without  considerable  thought,  however ;  those 
were  the  product  of  much  consideration  and  trial  and  ex- 
periment. 

Witness  has  stated,  in  the  present  hearing,  that  he  had 
put  in  14  days.  His  bill  is  for  $750  for  21  days.  Witness 
thinks  the  14  days  covers  the  time  spent  on  the  first  ma- 

1182  chine.  The  14  days  mentioned  in  the  bill  does  not  mean 
14  different  days,  but  the  equivalent  of  14  days'  time. 
Witness  cannot  remember  how  much  time  was  put  in  on 
the  Empire  machine. 

Witness  thinks  that  Veeder  meters  were  not  used  on  all 
three  of  the  machines. 

Witness  has  read  the  little  book  ' '  The  Truth  about  the 
Voting  Machine"  on  page  10  of  which  it  is  stated  that 
it  requires  5  keys  to  alter  the  machine  or  change  the  re- 
sult. After  his  investigations  witness  thinks  that  they 
cannot  change  the  result  with  5  keys,  "the  continuous 

1183  counter  keeps  on  going,  it  is  incapable  of  resetting  no 
matter  how  many  keys  you  have." 

As  witness  thinks  of  it  now,  the  two  keys  which  the 
custodian  is  supposed  to  have  would  be  necessary  to  make 
any  change  which  would  be  a  fraud. 

In  examining  the  200  machines  witness  did  not  pull 
down  all  the  keys,  but  just  voted  upon  the  party  lines  to 
move  all  the  wedges  and  would  have  moved  no  more  if  he 
had  voted  for  all  the  parties. 

1184  Witness  knew  that  there  were  blue  prints  with  some  of 
the  machines.  Cannot  state  whether  or  not  there  were 
blue  prints  with  all  the  machines. 

Witness  is  not  sure  whether  these  blue  prints  were  pre- 
sented to  the  experts  by  the  Election  Commissioners  when 


282  Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamberlain. 

they  asked  them  to  do  their  work.     Witness  remembers 

1185  seeing  blue  prints  but  cannot  tell  of  what  machine. 
When  he  saw  them  they  were  open  so  that  he  saw  they 
were  blue  prints ;  the  seal  was  broken.  Witness  remem- 
bers seeing  them  in  the  room,  but  does  not  know  who  pre- 
sented them  and  cannot  tell  what  machine  he  was  examin- 
ing at  the  time.  The  experts  had  all  the  machines  in  one 
room. 

The  report  on  the  9-party  70-key  machine  was  made  in 
the  Election  Commissioners'  room  where  the  machine  was 
examined  by  the  experts.    That  is  the  last  report. 

1186  Witness  has  no  particular  recollection  of  the  conversa- 
tion with  Mr.  Wheelock  when  he  spoke  to  him  about  em- 
ployment as  expert. 

"A.  I  presume  that  I  would  attack  it  tlien  as  I  would 
now,  any  job  that  I  was  after  I  went  to  the  man  that  I 
thought  was  most  likely  to  know  what  I  wanted." 

Witness  has  known  Mr.  Wheelock  for  many  years,  had 
not  known  Mr.  Mitchell  or  Mr.  Frank  D.  Ayers,  attorney 
for  the  previous  Board  of  Election  Commissioners.  Wit- 
ness did  not  know  any  member  of  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  nor  Mr.  Stuart  nor  the  County  Judge. 

1187  Witness  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  Mr. 
Wheelock  told  him  he  was  attorney  for  the  Empire  Com- 
pany when  he  first  called  upon  him. 

1188  Witness  cannot  now  remember  whether  he' knew  that 
Wheelock  was  attorney  for  the  Empire  Company  when  he 
called  upon  him. 

Witness  does  not  know  of  any  voting  machine  experts 
who  have  worked  in  the  construction  of  voting  machines 
who  are  not  employed  by  voting  madhine  companies. 

1189  Witness  first  read  of  the  proposed  examination  of  vot- 
ing machines  in  the  paper  and  knew  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners were  the  men  who  employed  experts  before  he 
went  to  see  Mr.  Wheelock.  Witness  did  this  because  Mr. 
Wheelock  had  once  been  attorney  for  the  Election  Com- 
missioners and  would  know  how  the  witness  should  pre- 
sent his  request. 

1190  Mr.  Wheelock  told  witness  to  go  to  Mr.  Stuart.  Wit- 
ness thinks  he  did  not  see  Judge  Owens  until  after  he  was 
appointed.  Witness  does  not  know  whether  Mr.  Stuart 
went  to  Judge  Owens  about  witness'  appointment. 

Witness  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury,  April,  1913. 

1191  "Q.  Do  you  remember  these  questions  were  asked  and 
these  answers  were  made  by  you  at  that  time?    I  am  hold- 


Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamberlain.  283 

ing  some  questions  here.  It  is  a  little  inconvenient.  'Did 
you  render  your  decision  in  favor  of  the  Empire  machine 
because  of  your  personal  friendship  and  liking  for  Mr. 
Wheelock,'  that  was  asked  you,  wasn't  it!    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.    You  said  'No.  sir.'?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  Now,  was  the  question  asked  you,  'Did  that 
thought  ever  occur  to  you?'  and  did  you  not  reply,  'No, 
I  don't  think  so'?  Was  that  question  asked  you?  A. 
Yes. 

"Q.  And  then  was  the  question  asked  you  'Are  you 
positive?',  and  your  answer  was  'No,  I  am  not  positive'? 
A.    Yes. 

*'Q.  And  you  went  on  with  a  long  discussion  qualifying 
that  afterwards.  Do  you  want  us  to  have  that  put  in, 
shall  I  put  it  all  in? 

"Mr.  MoBwEN.  Well,  there  is  some  portion  there,  I 
think  it  might  as  well  go  in,  referring  to  Mr.  Wheelock. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    What  part? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  have  108,  'You  have  offices  in  the 
Marquette  Bnilding?' 

"Mr.  Deneen.  I  had  intended  to  ask  him  that  but  he 
already  stated  that  he  had  offices  in  the  Mai'quette  Build- 
ing and  Wheelock  also  had. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Over  two  pages  to  110, 'A  Juror.  This 
being  true,  wouldn't  your  friendship — '  right  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  page — 'influence  you  in  your  decision?' 

' '  Mr.  Deneen.    I  don 't  see  that. 

"Mr.  McEwEiiT.  It  follows  the  statement  there  about 
Mr.  Wheelock — 

"Mr.  Deneen.    You  may  read  on. 

' '  Mr.  MoEwEN.  Well,  that  would  have  been  true  if  you 
had  been  wavering  between  one  machine  and  another,  if 
they  were  so  equal? 

"A.  Well,  the  decision  of  the  mechanical  points  was 
not  a  question  of  wavering  at  all." 

"Mr.  Deneen.    What  else  do  you  want  to  put  in? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    Well,  they  have  wandered  away  there? 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Yes,  wandered  away  and  just  left,  that 
is  all  I  care. 

"Mr.  McEwen.  They  came  back  to  Mr.  Wheelock  on 
page  115,  put  that  in. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    You  can  put  that  in,  115. 

"Mr.  MoEwen.  Over  on  116  is  the  question  'When 
you  went  to  Mr.  Wheelock,  did  you  know  he  represented 
the  Empire  machine? 


284  Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamberlain. 

"A.    No. 

"  Q.  You  solicited  this  business  the  same  as  you  would 
any  other  business  ?    A.    Exactly.'" 

1194  Witness  is  asked  about  the  complaint  that  certain  blue 
prints  had  not  been  opened  by  the  experts.  Witness  said 
he  thought  some  of  them  were  opened. 

'  '_Q.  Two  of  the  complaints,  you  will  recall,  the  Inter- 
national and  the  Triumph,  were  that  their  blue  prints 
were  not  opened,  so  that  the  blue  prints  opened  did  not 
belong  to  those  machines.  A.  I  don't  know,  they  might 
have,  because  some  of  the  complaints  they  made  were 
quite  as  ridiculous  as  that  would  have  been." 

Witness'  attention  is  also  called  to  the  claim  that  the 
International's  blue  prints  and  photographs  cost  about 
$750  to  prepare  and  said  he  didn't  see  how  it  could  cost 
to  prepare  $3  worth  of  blue  prints. 

Witness  has  worked  at  the  bench  in  school  and  as  a 
journeyman. 

1195  "Q.  You  were  not  a  joui-neyman — you  mean  journey- 
man for  the  experience  or  do  you  mean  that  you  earned 
your  living  at  it?    A.    Well,  living  at  it. 

"Q.  How  long  did  you  work  at  the  bench  after  you 
graduated?  A.  I  never  worked  at  the  bench  when  I 
graduated. 

"Q.  How  old  were  you  when  you  worked  at  the  bench? 
A.    Oh,  probably,  I  was  sixteen. 

Witness  was  paid  $50  per  day  for  examining  the  voting 
machines. 

1196  Afterwards  witness  was  employed,  he  tJainks,  by  Mr. 
Stuart  to  examine  the  200  machines.  Mr.  Stuart  sent  for 
him.  Witness  cannot  say  how  long  he  was  examining  the 
200  machines. 

1197  Is  not  sure  what  he  received  for  the  examination  of  the 
200  machines,  that  it  was  $50  per  day,  cannot  tell  how 
long  it  took.  Thinks  not  more  than  two  weeks.  Witness 
can  refer  to  his  book  to  tell  exactly  and  will  get  the  infor- 
mation tomorrow. 

Witness  was  also  employed  by  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners to  go  to  the  polls  and  inspect  the  machines  there. 

Witness  does  not  remember  what  he  was  asked  to  do 
but  he  was,  "to  be  of  such  use  as  my  familiarity  with  vot- 
ing machines  would  enable  me  to  see  that  the  machines 
were  properly  arranged,  properly  located  for  proper  elec- 
tions. ' ' 


Witness  Inspects  Machines  at  Polls.  285 

Witness  visited  nearly  all  the  machines  that  were  in 
operation  and  thinks  this  was  in  the  April  primaries. 
1198-1202     "Q.    Did  you  inspect  each  machine  that  you  vis- 
ited?   A.     Well,  I  don't  recall  that  I  examined  mostly 
every  machine. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  them  in  any  way!  A.  Oh,  the 
general  conditions  of  setting  and — 

Q.  The  levers?  A.  Seeing  that  the  roundings  were 
proper. 

Q.    Whether  the  levers  were  working?   A.    Well — 

Q.    Restricting  devices?    A.    No. 

Q.  Keys?  What  was  it  you  looked  at?  A.  We  could 
not  operate  those  after  the  machine  was  ready  for  vot- 
ing. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing?  What  were  you  doing  with 
reference  to  the  machines  at  polling  places.  A.  Well,  I 
stated  a  moment  ago  that  I  visited  the  different  places 
where  machines  were  set  up  to  see  that  they  were  working 
properly. 

Q.  You  visited  them  before  election,  before  primary 
day,  did  you  not?    A.    Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q.  Did  you  test  them  to  see  whether  they  were  working 
properly  ?    A.    No. 

Q.  _  What  did  you  do?  A.  Not  on  the  visiting;  but  the 
machines,  of  course,  could  not  be  voted  after  they  had 
been  set  at  the  custodian's. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  in  reference  to  them  when  you 
visited  them?  A.  Well,  I  saw  that  the  machines  were 
set  up  and  in  proper  shape  for  voting,  that  there  was 
room  for  the  curtains  and  the  curtains  to  be  on  in  the 
proper  shape  so  that  the  machines  could  be  opened,  and 
some  instructions  to  the  voters — I  mean  to  the  judges. 
Previous  to  the  election  I  assisted  in  instructing  the 
1199  judges  and  clerks. 

Q.  Well,  now,  let  us  finish  this  and  then  we  will  go  back 
to  that  in  order  to  save  time.  What  else  did  you  do  while 
visiting  the  machines?  A.  I  cannot  recall  any  specific 
thing  that  I  did  other  than  what  I  have  described. 

Q.  To  see  whether  or  not  they  were  in  condition  for 
use?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  test  them  out  as  much  as  you  could  without 
altering  them?  A.  Why,  I  can't  recall  any  specific  test 
that  I  applied  to  them. 

Q.  But  you  did  visit  all  of  them,  you  think?  A.  I 
think  I  visited  all  of  them. 


286  Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamberlain. 

Q.  And  how  many  days  were  you  engaged  in  that?  A. 
I  can't  tell  you. 

Q.  "Well,  how  many;  what  is  your  best  judgment?  A. 
Well,  I  should  think  that  there  were  two  or  three  days 
before  election. 

Q.  Yes.  Now  you  say  you  got  $50  a  day  for  that? 
A.    No. 

Q.    What  did  you  get  for  that?    A.    For  what? 

Q.  What  did  you  get  for  that?  A.  1  think  that  I  made 
a  Ivunp  sum  for  the  work  outlined. 

Sen.  Canaday.  Will  you  please  speak  a  little  louder  so 
we  can  hear  you? 

The  Witness.    I  think  I  made  a  lump  sum  for  the  work 

1200  that  would  be  required  for  that. 

Mr.  Denebn.  Q.  Then  you  say  you  were  engaged  in 
instructing  judges  before  the  primaries.  Who  engaged 
you  you  to  do  that,  Professor? 

A.    The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners. 

Q.     Through  Mr.  Stuart?     A.     Yes. 

Q.  How  many  days  were  you  engaged  in  instructing 
judges  how  to  conduct  the  machine ?    A.    I  can't  tell  you. 

Q.    Well,  was  it  two  weeks?    A.    No,  I  should  think — 

Q.     About  how  long?    A.    I  should  think  a  day  or  two. 

Q.  Will  you  say  it  was  only  a  day  or  two,  instructing  all 
of  these  judges?  A.  I  did  not  say  that  I  instructed  all 
the  judges. 

Q.  How  many  judges  did  you  instruct  during  the  time 
that  you  were  employed  in  that  capacity,  so  far  as  you 
can  recollect?  A.  Well,  that  I  can't  answer,  because  I 
don't  know%  but  the  instructions  w^as  very  largely  at  sec- 
ond hand,  the  various  employees  of  the  office  who  were 
available  for  that  purpose  received  more  or  less  instruc- 
tion from  me. 

Q.  Well  now,  let  us  get  it  as  we  go  along,  the  judges. 
To  what  extent  did  you  instruct  them?  A.  I  can't  tell 
you  definitely. 

Q.  As  to  how  many,  or  how  many?  A.  Nor  how 
many. 

Q.  Now,  about  the  employees,  how  many  employees 
did  you  teach?  A.  Well,  I  should  think  there  were  fif- 
teen to  sixteen. 

Q.  Who  employed  you  to  do  that?  A.  All  of  my  em- 
ployment was  by  the  Board  of  Election  -Commissioners 

1201  that  had  to  do  with  the  voting  machines. 


Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamheiiain.  287 

Q.     Through  Mr.  Stuart?    A.    Through  Mr.  Stuart. 

Q.  Now  how  long  were  you  employed  in  teaching  the 
employees,  these  fifteen  or  more  employees  of  the  Election 
Commission?  A.  Well,  I  can't  tell  that  very  closelj^,  some 
of  those  employees  had  to  assist  me  in  setting  up  the  ma- 
chines for  examination  over  to  the  storehouse,  and  the 
others  were  entirely  new  for  it. 

Q.  Well,  give  your  best  judgment  as  to  how  long  a 
time  was  consumed  in  instructing  these  employees  of  the 
Election  Commission.  A.  Well,  I  should  think  two  or 
three  days,  but  I — 

Q.  Not  more  than  that  ?  A.  I  think  not,  but  I  haven 't 
any  definite   recollection. 

Q.  What  compensation  did  you  receive  for  instructing 
those  employees!  A.  The  last  employment  by  the  board 
Avas  a  lump  sum. 

Q.    Yes  ?    A.    Which  I  made  mention  of  before. 

Q.  What  was  that!  I  do  not  recall  it,  you  said  a  lump 
sum,  but  I  do  not  think  you  named  it?  A.  No,  I  did  not 
name  it. 

Q.     What  was  it?    A.    I  do  not  recall  how  much  it  was. 

Q.  About  how  much  was  it?  A.  Well,  I  can't  tell  you 
that.  I  can  give  that  to  you  from  my  books  if  you  would 
like  to  have  it. 

Q.     I  think  we  ought  to  have  that.    Very  well,  we  would 
like  to  have  that.    Can  you  give  a  general  statement  as  to 
how  much  vou  got  for  that?    A.    No. 
1202    Q    Within  $100  or  $200?    A.     No. 

Q.  How  much  money  have  you  received  in  the  aggre- 
gate from  the  Election  Commission  in  connection  with  this 
voting  machine  since  vou  met  them?    A.    I  don't  know. 

Q.  Well,  is  it  $150*0  do  you  think?  A.  No,  I  think 
not. 

Q.  Will  you  give  that  statement  to  us,  to?  A.  I  will 
be  glad  to  do  so. 

Q.  Have  you  appeared  on  their  salary  roll  or  have 
you  been  employed  at  so  much  per  diem  a  day?  A.  Well, 
I  have  been  employed  at  so  much  per  diem  with  the  ex- 
ception of  one  set  of  service  which  was  for  a  lump  sum. 


288  Testimony  of  P.  M.  Chamberlain, 


VOLUME  XIII. 


Thursday,  July  31,  1913. 
Mornina:  Session. 


'o 


Paitl  M,  Chamberlain  resumes  the  stand: 

1204  The  three  experts  employed  by  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners met  with  Judge  Owens  and  received  instructions. 
No  Election  Commissioner,  County  Judge  or  employee 
of  the  Election  Commissioners'  office  made  any  suggestion 
regarding  one  machine  or  another,  nor  interfered  with  the 

1205  experts  in  any  way. 

Witness  rendered  a  bill  for  services  on  the  voting  ma- 
chine experts  commission,  June  5  to  June  26th,  inclusive, 
13^  days,  $675,  and  on  July  21st  a  bill  for  one  day,  $50, 
and  on  March  12th,  1912,  a  bill  for  testing  and  inspecting 
100  voting  machines  at  the  Pugh  warehouse,  February 
21st  to  February  23d,  inclusive,  2i  days,  $125,  and  on 
April  11th,  in  connection  with  voting  machines  on  March 
28th,  1912,  to  April  10th,  1912,  per  agreement  with  Mr. 
Stuart,  $300. 

1206  The  item  is  not  stated  in  the  bill  but  witness  finds  in  his 
ledger  it  consumed  12J  days.    The  total  amount  is  $1150. 

Witness  has  not  been  employed  by  the  City  or  any  Chi- 
cago municipality  since  that  tinie,  nor  at  any  except  on 
this  one  occasion. 

1207  Witness  is  not  related  to  Mr.  Wheelock. 

When  examining  the  voting  machines  in  the  election 
booth  the  witness  traveled  in  an  automobile,  which,  the 
witness  presumes,  the  City  furnished. 

1208  Witness  does  not  recall  that  he  looked  at  any  machines 
after  the  polls  closed.  Witness  had  no  keys  to  the  ma- 
chine. 

1210  Witness  does  not  consider  the  Empire  machine  an  easy 
machine  to  handle. 

Witness  can  think  of  nothing  unfair  about  the  ticket 
at  the  last  November  election  as  being  unfair  as  a  test 
of  voting  machines ;  would  think  it  an  ordinary  test. 

Witness  thinks  Judge  Owens  did  not  state  anything 
about  the  $50  per  day  paid  the  witness,  or  about  the  com- 
pensation for  his  services. 

1211  Witness'  attention  is  called  to  the  difference  in  the 


Testimony  of  Paid  M.  Chamberlain.  289 

amount  of  his  own  bill  and  that  of  Mr.  Abbott.  Witness 
states  Mr.  Abbott  was  called  awa^-  from  the  examination 
once  or  twice  and  that  might  account  for  the  difference  in 
time. 

1212  Witness  is  a  mechanical  expert  capable  of  passing  upon 
the  mechanical  movement  of  any  machine  which  was 
brought  to  his  attention.  Witness  does  not  think  he  knows 
as  much  about  voting  machines  as  an  inventor,  manufac- 
turer or  man  who  built  a  voting  machine. 

1213  Witness'  attention  is  called  to  a  device,  a  lever,  for 
cutting  out  all  parties  but  one  on  primary  day,  and  asked 
if  the  lever  stands  at  zero  whether  the  voter  cannot  vote 
for  any  or  all  parties.  Witness  thinks  not,  but  is  not 
sure.  Witness  cannot  remember,  but  depends  upon  the 
report  as  to  whether  the  experts  considered  the  ques- 
tion of  primary  elections. 

1214  Witness  looking  at  commission's  report  states: 

"A.  Well,  we  reported  that  the  machine  fulfilled  the 
requirements  of  the  state  law." 

"Sen.  Landee.  Q.  Well,  that  is  in  the  state  law,  the 
primary  election. 

"A.     Then  it  is  covered. 

"Q.  We  had  the  primary  election  at  that  time.  A. 
Then  it  is  covered. 

"Q.    You  are  sure  of  that?    A.    Yes,  sir." 

Witness  cannot  express  an  opinion  as  to  a  fair  price 
to  be  paid  to  the  manufacturer  of  the  Veeder  meter. 

1215  Witness  cannot  say  that  you  could  place  a  mechanical 
movement  on  a  blue  print  as  well  as  you  could  on  a  ma- 
chine.   A  machine  could  be  made  without  a  blue  print. 

1216  Blue  prints  would  not  show  the  material.  Specifica- 
tions, if  they  were  complete  enough,  would. 

1217  By  contracting  engineers — the  witness  is  one — specifica- 
tions and  blue  prints  are  frequently  considered  before  the 
contract.  Witness  does  not  think  the  Empire  voting  ma- 
chine will  corrode  standing  in  the  warehouse  in  all  kinds 
of  weather. 

1219  Witness  is  familiar  with  the  grouping  devices  on  the 
Empire  machine.  They  are  set  by  the  custodian.  Wit- 
ness does  not  think  that  pegs  or  pins  in  the  grouping  de- 
vices could  drop  out  or  be  disturbed  by  moving  the  vot- 
ing machine. 

1220  The  pins  referred  to  make  the  restricting  spaces.    Wit- 


290  Testimony  of  Paul  M.  Chamberlain. 

ness  cannot  tell  without  examining  tlie  machine  whether 

1221  there  is  any  locking  device  to  keep  the  keys  in. 

1222  There  is  little  strain  on  this  pin  and  no  strain  which 
tends  to  pull  them  out  or  in. 

1224  The  restricting  pins  are  made  of  wire  about  3/32ds  of 
an  inch  thick  and  are  strong  enough  to  stand  the  strain 
put  upon  them. 

Mr.  Deneen.  You  stated  in  response  to  Representative 
Jayne's  question  that  your  bill  was  put  in  the  10th  of 
April,  the  last  bill  that  you  have? 

A.     March  28th  to  April  10th. 

Q.  Election  occurred  on  April  4th?  A.  Yes,  I  think 
so. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  on  the  5th,  6th  and  7th  of 
April  with  these  machines  T  A.  I  could  not  recall  at  this 
time. 

Q.  Were  you  examining  them  to  see  whether  they 
were  in  proper  condition?  A.  I  don't  know,  I  cannot 
recall  what  the  services  were,  rendered  at  that  time. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  on  the  28th  and  29th  and 
30th,  and  the  1st,  2d  and  3d  of  April,  save  Sunday,  with 
reference  to  the  machine,  what  kind  of  work  were  you 
doing?  A.  AVell,  examining  the  machines,  I  don't  re- 
member these  specific  days,  but  at  that  time  I  examined 
the  machines  and  as  I  recall  it  gave  some  instructions  re- 
garding the  operation  and  the  setting. 

Q.     What  part  of  the  machines  were  you  examining? 

1225  A.  Oh,  that  was  with  reference  to  setting. the  machines 
and  the  proper  handling  of  it  in  the  hands  of  the  officials, 
the  Election  officials. 

Q.  Well,  now,  the  proper  setting,  let  us  get  that  first, 
what  did  you  do  about  the  setting  of  it? 

The  Chaieman.  Has  the  witness  answered  the  ques- 
tion! 

Mr.  Deneen.  He  is  thinking  that  over,  he  has  not  an- 
swered that. 

A.     I  do  not  recall  definitely. 

Q.  Can't  you  tell  the  commission  the  things  of  your 
work  with  reference  to  those  machines  from  March  28th 
to  April  10th?  A.  It  embraces  a  number  of  various 
things  wherever  there  was  a  call  for  my  assistance  or  ex- 
planation I  was  on  hand  to  give  it. 

Q.  Well,  now,  what  did  you  do?  A.  I  remember  spe- 
cifically explaining  the  operations  of  the  machines? 


Testimony  of  Paul  M.  Chamberlain.  291 

Q.  To  whom?  A.  To  members  of  the  Election  Com- 
sion's  office  force. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  mean  their  names,  but  where,  where 
were  you  explaining  it  ?  A.  Well,  there  were  several  ma- 
chines were  set  up  for  exhibition  purposes  and  instruc- 
tion. 

Q.  Well,  what  else,  and  where?  A.  I  cannot  recall 
specifically. 

1226  Q.  Did  you  have  to  do  with  explaining  to  members, 
representatives  of  the  Election  Commission  over  to  the 
warehouse — Pugh's  warehouse?  A.  On  some  occasions, 
I  am  not  quite  positive  whether  or  not  it  was  at  this 
time. 

Q.  I  mean  between  the  28th  of  March  and  the  10th  of 
April.    A.    I  would  think  that — I  cannot  say  positively. 

Q.  Well,  can't  you  tell  the  Commission  what  you  did, 
save  the  fact  that  you  inspected  several  machines  in  the 
City  Hall  and  taught  some  of  the  men  connected  with  the 
Election  Commission  over  there  in  intricacies  of  the  ma- 
chines? A.  On  two  occasions  I  examined  machines  at  the 
Pugh  warehouse. 

Q.     On  two  occasions?    A.    On  tw^o  occasions. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  on  and  after  March  28th?  A.  I  don't 
think — I  think  that  quite  likely  one  of  them  was  after 
March  28th. 

Q.  And  one  was  after?  A.  Well,  that  is  covered  by— 
that  is  the  interval  February  21st  to  23d,  the  two  and 
one-half  days. 

Q.  Well,  now,  when  you  examined  them  at  Pugh's 
warehouse  on  or  after  March  28th,  what  were  you  doing 
with  the  machines?  A.  Well,  if  it  was  after  the  date 
that  I  made  the  test  of  the  second  lot  of  the  machines 
at  the  Pugh  Terminal  warehouse  it  was  taking  the  ma- 
chines out  of  the  crates  and  testing  the  keys  for  voting 
and  interlocking. 

Q.     Well,  you  said  if  it  was,  you  mean  to  tell  the  com- 

1227  mittee  that  the  second  consignment  of  machines  came 
after  March  28th  and  you  examined  them  for  the  April 
election  on  April  4th.    A.    I  did  not  mean  to  say  that. 

Q.  State  to  the  committee  whether  or  not  you  were 
engaged  on  or  after  March  28th,  1912,  examining  a  con- 
signment of  machines  from  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company  to  the  Commission?    A.    I  think  I  was. 

Q.    And  was  that  all  that  you  were  doing?    A.    I  ex- 


292  Testimony  of  Paul  M.  Chamberlain. 

plained  to  you  just  a  moment  ago  that  I  demonstrated 
the  machines  over  at  the  City  Hall. 

Q.     Several  machines?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  in  riding  around  town  visit- 
ing the  polling  places,  what  work  were  you  doing  in  con- 
nection with  the  machines  at  that  time !  A.  Well,  seeing 
that  the  machines  were  properly  set  and  that  they  were 
getting  along  properly  with  them  at  the  polling  places. 

Q.  In  what  way  do  you  mean  getting  along  properly, 
that  they  were  working  and  operating?  A.  Yes,  and  if 
there  was  any  obstacles  to  their  working  in  some  of  the 

1228  polling  places,  we  had  to  have  them  move  some  of  their 
furniture  to  give  room  for  the  curtains  to  be  opened.  They 
had  been  set  up  the  night  before  but  not  opened  out,  that 
is  one  of  the  things. 

Q.  Yes,  tell  some  others?  A.  Well,  I  don't  recall 
at  this  time  what  other  things  were  found. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  what  you  did  from  March  28th  to 
April  10th,  inclusive,  except  that  you  assisted  or  demon- 
strated on  several  machines  in  the  City  Hall  and  you 
rode  around  the  city  inspecting  machines  in  reference  to 
the  curtains?  A.  Well,  inspecting  machines  to  see 
whether  they  were  in  condition  for  voting  and  whether 
they  were  having  any  difficulty  with  any  of  the  explana- 
tions which  they  had  previously  received  and  which  they 
might  have  forgotten. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  tell  any  of  the  judges,  inform  them 
as  to  the  mistakes  they  made  or  were  making. 

A.  I  think  in  some  instances  they  had  not  understood 
about  the  unlocking  of  the  machine,  ready  for  voting. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  do?  A.  Demonstrated  to  them 
how  it  was  done. 

Q.  When  was  that?  A.  Well,  I  cannot  say  that  defi- 
nitely but  I  think  the  morning  of  election. 

Q.    How  many  did  you  have  to  teach  how  to  open  the 

1229  machine?    A.    I  cannot  say. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  begin  work  that  day?  A. 
Started  out  very  early,  I  should  think  perhaps  half  past 
six,  but  I  am  not  sure,  it  was  very  early. 

Q.  How  many  judges,  how  many  polling  booths  did 
you  have  to  teach  the  judges  how  to  open  their  machines  ? 
A.     I  cannot  say. 

Q.     How  long  were  you  riding  around  the  city  before 


Testimony  of  Paul  M.  Chamberlain.  293 

you  visited  the  first  polling  place  1  A.  Went  directly  ta 
the  first  polling  place. 

Q.  Where  was  it?  A.  Well,  I  should  think  it  was 
on  State  street. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  a  long  street,  what  part?  A.  Oh, 
somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of  600  State  street. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  started  from  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners'  office  at  half  past  six,  or  that  you 
started  to  go  to  work  at  half  past  six!  A.  I  remember 
leaving  the  house  very  early  and  starting  in  on  the  duties 
of  the  day  and  I  know  we  were  riding  very  early. 

Q.  Well,  what  time?  A.  Well,  I  should  think  that  we 
were  on  the  road  by  seven  o'clock. 

Q.  And  that  is — then  you  went  to  State  street,  the  600 
number?    A.    I  don't  know  that  it  was  600. 

Q.    About  that?     A.     That  is  my  recollection,  some- 

1230  where  in  the  600 's. 

Q.  Down  as  far  as  Harmon  court?  A.  I  don't  know  it 
by  that  name. 

Q.  Well,  Van  Buren  street  ?  A.  I  should  think  it  was 
in  that  vicinity. 

Q.  And  the  judges  had  not  been  able  to  open  the  box 
of  the  voting  machine  at  that  time?  A.  I  cannot  say  that 
it  was  the  first  place  we  visited  nor  can  I  say  what  place 
it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  about  what  time  of  the  day  when 
you  had  to  open  the  machine,  the  first  one?  A.  No,  I  can- 
not. 

Q.  Could  it  have  been  as  late  as  eight  o  'clock?  A.  Yes, 
it  might  have  been. 

Q.     It  might  have  been  that  late?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  How  many  of  the  machines  did  you  have  to  open 
and  work  for  the  judges?    A.     I  don't  know. 

Q.  Were  there  any  others  ?  A.  I  cannot  recall  whether 
there  was  or  not,  I  remember  that  is  one  of  the  things. 

Q.  Did  you  go  out  as  far  as  Longwood — you  know 
where  Longwood  is  ?    A.    No,  sir. 

Q.     Do  you  know  where  Tracey  is?    A.    No,  sir. 

Q.     Or  South  Englewood  or  Morgan  Park?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  out  to  a  little  town  near  Morgan  Park 
to  examine  some  machines  that  would  not  work, — Long- 

1231  wood,  that  is  the  32d  ward?    A.    I  cannot  recall  that. 

Q.     Cannot  recall  that?    A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Did  you  go  into  the  outskirts  of  the  city,  the  sub- 


294  Inspects  Voting  Machines  Election  Day. 

urbs  and  examine  some  machines  that  would  not  work  ?  A. 
During  the  day  we  visited  nearly  all  the  precincts  where 
the  machines  were  in  operation. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  many  were  in  operation?  A.  No, 
sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  There  were  several  hundred,  were  there  not?  A. 
I  think  it  was  less  than  200. 

Q.     Less  than  200!    A.    Yes. 

Q.  How  many  did  you  tind  out  of  order  ?  A.  I  cannot 
tell  you. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  an  estimate  ?  A.  No ;  I  don 't  know 
that  I  found  any  out  of  order. 

Q.     How  many  did  you  find  working  defectively? 

1232  A.     I  didn't  find  any  that  were  working  perfectly. 

Q.  How  many  did  you  have  to  correct  in  their  opera- 
tion?   A.    How  many  judges? 

Q.  No,  how  many  machines?  A.  I  don't  think  we 
corrected  any  machines  in  their  operation;  I  don't  remem- 
ber any. 

Q.  How  many  election  boards  did  you  have  to  instruct 
how  to  operate  the  machine?    A.    I  can't  tell. 

Q.  Well,  give  us  an  estimate.  A.  I  have  no  definite 
memory  on  that  subject ;  I  would  think  that  there  probably 
were  not  more  than  two  or  three. 

Q.     Your  recollection  is  vague  on  that?    A.    It  is. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  memoranda  regarding  that  ?  A. 
No,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Didn't  make  any  report  regarding  it?  A.  Verbal 
only,  at  the  time. 

Q.     To  whom?    A.    The  clerk  of  election. 

Q,     Mr.  Stuart?    A.    Mr.  Stuart,  yes. 

Q.  Who  accompanied  you  on  this  trip  ?  A.  Employees 
of  the  office. 

Q.  Do  you  know  their  names?  A.  I  can't  give  you 
their  names. 

Q.  That  is  all  you  can  say  about  your  work  from  March 
28th  to  April  10th,  is  that  your  recollection?    A.    Yes. 

1233  Witness  thinks  the  experts,  when  examining  the  ma- 
chines saw  some  little  pamphlets  submitted  by  the  owners 
of  some  of  the  machines. 

The  experts  examined  the  specifications.  Witness'  at- 
tention is  called  to  the  part  of  the  specitications  on  page 
3  regarding  blue  prints,  photographs    and    statements. 


Testimony  of  Paul  M.  Chamberlain.  295 

Witness  does  not  recall  it,  but  the  experts   must  have 
read  it. 

1234  Witness  does  not  recall  that  Judge  Owens  said  any- 
thing about  the  machines  complying  with  the  specifications 
nor  does  he  remember  that  anything  was  said  about  how 
many  machines  were  to  be  purchased. 

Witness  thinks  that  nothing  was  said  about  report  of 
the  previous  examiners  or  about  the  investigations  of  the 
preceding  Board. 

1235  Experiments  in  voting,  testing  whether  a  voter  could 
vote  in  a  minute,  were  conducted  by  Election  Commis- 
sioners, Mr.  Abbott,  Mr.  Wooley,  and  the  witness.  Did 
not  use  any  employees  of  the  Election  Commission. 

1235-6  "Q.  You  don't  think  so.  I  notice,  if  you  will  turn 
back  to  your  memoranda,  that  you  say  March  -1,  1912, 
you  rendered  a  bill  for  services  in  inspecting  100  ma- 
chines for  $125;  that  was  the  bill,  wasn't  it?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

"Q.  You  accepted  200  machines  and  rejected  2.  Where 
is  your  bill  for  the  other  98  or  the  other  100  f  A.  My 
testimony  of  yesterday  in  regard  to  inspecting  200  ma- 
chines at  one  time  must  have  been  in  error,  it  was  en- 
tirely a  matter  of  memory. 

"Q.  Yes.  A.  But  I  find  from  the  bills  which  I  ren- 
dered that  101  machines — now,  let  us  see,  just  a  moment — 
I  have  a  note  here  that  on  April  4th  I  reported  examina- 
tion on  machines,  serial  numbers  4461  to  4661,  covering 
dates  of  March  28th,  29th  and  30th. 

"Q.  That  is  what  you  were  doing  then?  A.  101  ma- 
chines. 

"Q.     March  28th  to  what?    A.    28th  to  30th." 

1236  The  machines  examined  were  sent  out  at  primary  elec- 
tion. Witness  did  not  set  the  grouping  devices,  but  was 
on  hand  when  this  work  was  going  on  and  perhaps  set 
some  of  the  machines. 

1238  The  representative  of  the  particular  machine  under  ex- 
amination, or  the  owner  of  the  machine,  was  called 
in  as  the  experts  required,  to  demonstrate  the  use  of  the 
machine  and  to  answer  questions. 

In  examining  the  Empire  machine  the  experts  didn't 
take  it  all  apart.  They  removed  the  legislative  grouping 
device.  There  is  but  one  grouping  device,  the  witness 
says,  on  the  Empire  machine.  It  is  in  one  apparatus,  as 
the  witness  recalls  it. 


296  Testimony  of  William  Wooley. 

Witness  has  not  been  employed  by  the  Empire  Com- 
pany to  do  any  work  since  he  made  the  examination. 

Witness  knows  Mr.  Barr  who  was  one  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Empire  machine,  but  was  not  the  me- 
chanical expert.     Mr.   Barr  was    in    the    corridor    and 

1239  offered,  but  witness  does  not  recall  whether  he  gave 
any  explanations  of  the  workings  of  the  machine  or  not. 

William  Wooley: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Residence,  3143  Diversey  Avenue.  Witness  is  a  me- 
chanic employed  by  the  Moon-Hopkins  Machine  Com- 
pany, a  computing  machine. 

1240  AVitness  was  employed  as  one  of  the  experts  to  exam- 
ine the  voting  machines  in  June,  1911.  Witness  was 
recommended  to  Mr.  Stuart  as  an  expert  by  a  Mr.  Scull, 
an  auditor  at  Armour's.  Mr.  McCord  of  Armour  &  Com- 
pany told  witness  to  see  Mr.  Stuart. 

1241  Witness  saw  Mr.  Stuart  and  introducing  himself  pre- 
sented Mr.  Scull's  card.  Witness  told  Mr.  Stuart  that 
he  was  the  gentleman  Mr.  Scull  had  spoken  about  to  him. 
Mr.  Stuart  said  he  wanted  witness  to  examine  four  dif- 
ferent makes  of  voting  machines. 

1242  The  conversation  occurred  at  the  Election  Commission- 
er's office.  Witness  talked  with  Mr.  Stuart  at  no  place  else. 
Talked  with  Mr.  Stuart  three  or  four  weeks  before  he 
began  work  as  an  expert. 

The  only  time  the  witness  met  the  other  experts  was 
when  he  went  with  them  to  Judge  Owens.  Witness  never 
saw  reports  made  by  other  examining  experts. 

1243  Witness  does  not  remember  seeing  the  specifications 
while  examining  the  machine  and  did  not  know  that  any 
had  been  issued  at  the  time  of  soliciting  bids. 

Witness  did  not  examine  any  blue  prints  or  photo- 
graphs or  instructions  as  to  the  operation  of  any  of  the 
four  machines. 

Witness  testifies  he  saw  the  instructions  in  a  small 
room  adjoining  the  room  where  the  machines  were  and 
thinks  he  remembers  the  blue  prints  were  in  a  kind  of 
book  form ;  does  not  remember  whether  or  not  they  were 
sealed.  The  package  of  blue  prints  in  book  form,  tlie 
witness  thinks  he  remembers,  was  open.    Witness  thinks 


Cannot  Vote  Primary  Ballot  in  Minute.  297 

refers  to  the  International  machine.  Thinks  that  the 
International  was  the  only  machine  that  had  blue  prints 
there. 

1244  Witness  does  not  know  whether  any  other  blue  prints 
were  opened. 

The  experts  had  the  aid  of  demonstrators  of  several 
machines.  The  demonstrators  were  with  the  experts 
about  half  the  time  and  were  accessible  the  other  half. 

1245  The  experts  did  not  take  the  machines  apart  and  all 
that  the  experts  saw  was  what  could  be  seen  from  the 
front,  and  then  in  the  rear  when  the  doors  were  open. 

1246  Witness  thinks  the  experts  and  the  demonstrators 
were  the  only  ones  that  voted  and  that  afterwards  Mr. 
Czarnecki  and  Mr.  Kellermann  tried  their  hands  at  it. 

1247  Witness  thinks  the  experts  put  in  all  of  three  days  on 
the  Empire  voting  machine. 

1248  Mr.  Barr  was  not  in  the  room  where  the  machine  was. 
Witness  met  Mr.  Barr,  but  at  no  time  talked  with  him 
about  the  machine.  Mr.  Barr  was  there  during  the  three 
days. 

Witness  had  never  before  examined  a  voting  machine. 
Had  voted  on  one  once  at  Whitestown,  New  York,  in  1898, 
when  he  cast  his  first  vote. 

1249  Witness'  acquaintance  with  voting  machines  is  limited 
entirely  to  what  he  did  on  these  machines.  Witness  be- 
lieves the  Empire  voting  machine  fulfills  all  the  require- 
ments of  the  State  Ballot  Law.  Witness  does  not  know 
what  the  requirements  of  the  State  law  are,  but  "we  had 
them  up  when  we  examined  the  machines." 

Witness  said  that  a  split  ticket  could  be  voted  on  an 
Empire  machine  at  the  general  election,  but  not  at  a 
primary  election.  "I  do  not  believe  that  anybody  could 
vote  a  split  ticket  in  less  than  a  minute  in  a  primary  like 
the  last  April  primary."  That  was  the  Chicago  primary 
of  1912. 

1250  Witness  does  not  include  voting  on  public  utility  ques- 
tions but  just  the  names.  It  would  require  more  time  to 
vote  on  public  questions. 

Witness'  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  there  is 
no  split  ticket  at  primary  elections,  and  lets  his  answer 
stand  as  to  general  elections. 

The  reason  for  not  voting  in  a  minute  at  a  primary  is 
because  there  are  so  many  names. 

1251  As  to  materials  in  the  machine,  witness  has  no  inde- 


298  Testimony  of  William  Wooley. 

pendent  recollection,  but  reads  the  report  and  says  "It 
states  here  steel,  aluminum,  bronze,  and  other  composi- 
tion metals." 

Last  fall's  election  was  a  general  presidential  election. 

1252  Witness  thinks  that  a  man  might  vote  the  ticket  in  one 
minute  if  he  was  familiar  with  the  ballot  and  "did  not 
want  to  cut  his  ballot  all  to  pieces.  In  splitting,  an  ordi- 
nary, intelligent  man  can  vote  in  a  minute,  I  believe." 
If  he  desired  to  split  his  ticket  very  generally,  witness 
thinks  he  couldn't  do  it. 

As  to  the  possibility  of  the  metal  used  in  the  Empire 
machine  corroding  witness  only  knows  that  the  process 
that  they  had,  of  course,  on  their  metal  prevented  it  from 

1253  corroding.  The  demonstrator  claimed  it.  The  demon- 
strator claimed  the  metals  were  shererdized.  Witness 
does  not  know  what  this  process  is  or  what  it  would  do 
except  as  the  demonstrator  told  him. 

1254  Kust  would  interfere  with  the  operation  of  the  ma- 
chine at  the  working  points  unless  they  were  oiled.  The 
experts  examined  the  machine  in  reference  to  primary 
devices. 

If  the  machine  were  set  in  a  certain  place  a  voter  could 
vote  for  candidates  of  his  own  party  and  also  for  those 
of  any  other  party  at  the  same  time.  The  custodian  could 
set  it  so  this  could  be  done.  The  judges  could  do  nothing. 
The  custodian  could  do  this  by  setting  the  primary  lever 
at  zero.  When  the  lever  is  set  at  zero  the  voter  can  vote 
any  candidate  on  the  machine.     "But  there  is  a  lock 

1255  in  the  machine  that  prevents  that,  as  near  as  I  can  re- 
member. ' ' 

"It  is  under  seal  when  the  custodian  sets  the  machine 
and  throws  that  lock  down  preventing  the  primary  lever 
from  going  to  cipher  after  he  has  the  machine  set." 

The  seal  referred  to  is  an  ordinary  wire  seal  with  a 
leaden  ball  on  both  ends.  Witness  does  not  know  whether 
it  is  numbered  and  registered  for  identification. 

1256  According  to  the  report  the  Empire  machine  has  no 
restriction  on  the  number  of  inspections  of  the  counters 
and  registers  by  the  judges. 

Witness  thinks  there  are  cases  to  arrange  the  machines 
for  transportation.  Witness  is  asked  if  it  is  convenient 
to  put  a  machine  up  in  a  case  and  put  it  out,  and  answers : 
"A.    I  think  they  roll  right  on  their  owm  casters." 

1257  Witness  does  not  know  whether  the  Empire  machine 


Cannot  Remember  Number  of  Machine  Examined.    299 

has  castors.  Witness  saw  the  machine  cases  and  thinks 
the  machine  the  experts  examined  would  run  into  the 
room  in  its  case. 

1258  "Thev  had  four  or  five  big,  husky  fellows  there  to  take 
it  out."' 

Witness  does  not  remember  the  weight  of  the  machine, 
but  same  report  says  it  is  904  pounds. 

The  first  Empire  machine  examined  by  the  witness  was 
a  7-party,  50-key  machine.  It  was  this  machine  that 
weighed  904  pounds. 

1259  Witness  does  not  remember  the  serial  number  on  the 
machine,  nor  where  it  was  made. 

"Q.  Was  the  machine,  the  Empire  ma,chine,  marked, 
was  the  machine  marked  'Empire'  or  'United  States 
Standard'?  A.  I  do  not  remember  of  seeing  the  plates." 
Indicating  the  make  of  the  machine. 

It  took  four  men  to  handle  the  first  machine.  Witness 
would  not  call  any  of  the  machines  convenient  to  handle. 

The  second  Empire  machine  handled  was  heavier  than 
the  first  because  it  is  a  larger  machine. 

Witness  did  not  take  the  serial  number  of  the  machine 
and  does  not  know  where  it  was  made  nor  whether  it  was 
marked  "Empire"  or  "United  States  Standard."  Wit- 
ness does  not  remember  the  weight  of  the  second  ma- 
chine. 

1261  The  second  Empire  machine  was  provided  with  a 
party-key.  Both  the  Empire  machines  had  a  party-key. 
Witness  thinks  the  party-lever  and  the  party-key  is  a 
matter  which  is  optional  with  the  town  purchasing  ma- 
chines. The  partj^-lever  casts  the  vote  for  each  indi- 
vidual candidate  and  the  party-key  makes  one  mark  like 
a  circle  on  a  straight  ticket. 

1262  "It  also  makes  it  necessary  to  add  the  ballots  cast  on 
the  party  machine  to  those  cast  on  the  individual  keys. 
This  advantage  could  apply  to  any  machine  which  has  a 
party-key  instead  of  a  party  lever.  The  advantage  of 
the  party-key,  on  the  other  hand,  are  simplicity  of  con- 
struction and  less  mechanical  complications." 

It  was  the  opinion  of  the  experts  that  the  party-lever 
would  be  an  advantage  over  the  party-key  because  it 
would  add  the  straight  ticket  to  the  irregular  ticket,  and 

1263  give  the  total  on  the  machine.  Under  the  party-key  sys- 
tem the  judges  had  to  call  off  the  votes  and  the  clerks  put 
them  down  and  add  them. 


300        Thought  Defects  Found  Woidd  Be  Corrected. 

Witness  understood  that  in  making  the  statements  in 
the  report  in  regard  to  the  absence  of  a  party-lever,  the 
experts  intended  that  the  commissioners  would  have  the 
manufacturers  correct  this  defect  to  make  it  a  machine 
that  came  up  to  the  views  of  the  experts. 

Witness  does  not  believe  that  a"  party-lever  could  be 
1264  placed  on  the  Empire  machine.  It  it  were  done,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  have  some  mechanism  connecting  with 
each  counter.  There  are  700  counters  on  a  machine,  and 
to  attach  the  party-lever  would  be  some  job.  Witness 
does  not  think  it  would  be  difficult  and  cannot  say  whether 
it  would  be  expensive. 

1266  Tlie  Empire  machine  was  ranked  third  in  regard  to 
relative  convenience  of  handling. 

The  experts  examined  the  grouping  devices  on  the 
Empire  machine  as  to  their  operation.  The  demon- 
strators explained  all  the  operations  to  the  experts. 

The  witness  does  not  think  the  legislative  grouping 
devices  could  be  arranged  so  that  the  voter  could  cast 
6  votes  for  Eepresentative,  if  the  machine  is  set  correctly 
by  the  custodian. 

1267  Witness  thinks  the  custodian  could  set  the  legislative 
grouping  mechanism  so  a  voter  could  vote  more  than  3 
votes. 

The  experts  relied  on  the  demonstrators  for  setting 
and  controlling  of  the  legislative  grouping  device. 

1268  Witness  does  not  think  the  custodian  could  set  a  ma- 
chine so  that  voter  could  vote  twice  for  one  candidate. 

The  custodian  could  not  set  a  machine  so  that  the  voter 
could  vote  a  straight  ticket  and  also  for  another  indi- 
vidual candidate. 

The  experts  examined  the  device  restricting  Avomen's 
voting. 

1269  The  machine  could  be  set  by  the  custodian  so  that 
women  could  be  restricted. 

On  examining  the  experts'  report  witness  said  that  an 
error  by  the  voter  could  be  corrected  by  the  judge  on  an 
Empire  machine.  The  witness  cannot  explain  how  this 
could  be  done  by  the  judge.  The  witness'  present  recol- 
lection is  that  the  judge  could  do  it. 

1270  The  Empire  machine  had  a  releasing  knob.  Its  pur- 
pose was  to  enable  the  voter  to  get  out  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine without  voting  if  he  desires  to  do  so  or  it  could 
be  pulled  by  the  judge. 


Testimony  of  William  Wooley.  301 

The  witness  is  asked  to  look  at  the  machine  in  the 
room  to  refresh  his  recollection. 

Mr.  Deneen  asks  that  Mr.  Stuart  deliver  the  keys  so 
as  to  facilitate  the  examination. 
1271-2  "The  Chairman.    The  custodian  has  them. 

1273  After  examining  the  releasing  knob  on  the  voting  ma- 
chine, the  witness  is  asked  as  to  its  function,  and  states 
that  if  the  voter  goes  out  of  the  machine  without  voting 
it  will  be  necessary  to  release  the  releasing  knob  before 
the  operating  lever  could  be  returned  to  its  normal  posi- 
tion. The  same  thing  can  be  done  by  operating  any  key 
on  the  machine. 

The  witness  is  shown  a  sample  ballot  on  the  machine 

1274  and  his  attention  called  to  two  keys,  one  of  which  is 
blank  and  the  other  marked  "H.  H.  Hahn  1  1/2  votes," 
the  keys  being  numbered  22-D  and  23-D  respectively,  and 
asked  if  the  voter  who  votes  some  other  ticket  than  the 
straight  Socialist  ticket,  pulls  down  the  key  marked 
23-D  on  the  machine,  how  many  votes  he  casts  for  Mr. 
Hahn. 

He  answered,  "My  memory  of  the  grouping  device 
is  not  very  clear,  but  I  should  say  that  Mr.  Hahn  got  one 
vote,  one  and  one-half  votes,  rather." 

"Q.  Now,  if  he  pulled  the  22-D  down,  what  would  hap- 
pen, there  is  a  blank  space  there?  A.  I  don't  believe 
that  he  could  pull  23-D  down  if  the  grouping  device  is  set 
correctly. 

"Q.  He  would  get  just  li  votes?  A.  1|  votes;  yes, 
sir." 

The  witness  does  not  know  whether  any  other  sugges- 
tion made  by  the  experts  was  incorporated  in  the  Empire 
machines  sold  to  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  witness  is  not  a  graduate  of  any  college  and  has  no 
degree.      He  has  worked  at  the  bench. 

1275  For  the  past  two  and  a  half  years  the  witness  has 
had  charge  of  the  Chicago  office  of  the  Moon-Hopkins 
Company  at  the  mechanical  end ;  this  means  that  he  goes 
out  and  keeps  the  machines  in  working  order. 

In  voting  machines  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  drawings 
or  a  model. 
After  a  machine  is  built,  one  would  go  to  the  blueprint 


302  Testimony  of  William  Wooley. 

only  to  get  the  number  of  a  part  or  a  measurement  once 
in  awhile: 

1276  Every  part  has  a  number  in  the  blueprint,  but  not  on 
the  machine.  The  blueprint  is  an  index  to  the  machine. 
In  examining  a  machine  to  see  whether  it  operates  prop- 
erly, the  machine  itself  is  examined,  not  the  blueprint. 

Witness  thinks  there  are  five  keys  for  the  various  com- 
partments of  the  Empire  voting  machine. 

1277  To  change  the  grouping  device  or  set  the  counters,  a 
man  would  have  to  have  the  five  keys. 

No.  1  key  is  for  the  padlock  on  the  voting  lever.  No. 
2  is  the  operating  knob.  No.  3  is  the  rear  door.  No.  4 
is  the  custodian's  key,  giving  admission  into  the  grouping 
devices  part  of  the  machine,  and  No.  5  unlocks  the  operat- 
ing lever  of  the  counters. 


VOLUME  XIV. 

Afternoon  Session. 

Thursday,  July  31,  1913. 

William  Wooley,  resumes  the  stand: 

1279  "Q.  I  understand,  complying  with  request  of  counsel 
for  the  committee,  Mr.  Huff,  the  custodian  for  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  has  turned  to  Prof.  Leutweiler  the 
keys  to  the  machine  that  is  now  in  this  room. 

"The  Chairman.    Your  five  keys. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Mr.  Huff  also  left  with  me  two  reports 
of  the  examination  of  the  machine,  which  I  would  like  to 
have  identified  and  left  with  the  Chairman. 

"The  Chairman.  That  is  for  the  purpose  of  making 
the  record. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  If  the  machine  is  to  be  subjected  to 
any  test,  I  think  that  ought  to  be  the  procedure.  One 
is  called  the  Assemblers'  Certificate  and  one  is  called  the 
Examiners'  Certificate. 

"The  Chairman.  The  assembler  is  the  man  who  sets 
the  machine  witli  reference  to  the  grouping  and  cumula- 
tive voting? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  And  the  examiner  is  the  one  who  goes 
after  the  other  and  checks  it  up,  the  one  follows  the 


Testimony  of  William,  Wooley.  303 

other.    I  think  if  there  was  going  to  be  any  change,  these 

1280  ought  to  be  left  with  the  Committee. 

"The  Chairman.  There  is  no  objection  with  the 
Chairman.     The  examiner  has  not  tried  yet — 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  tried,  I  don't 
know  whether — 

' '  The  Chairman.  It  doesn  't  make  any  difference,  that 
is,  if  Mr.  Huff  has  now  put  the  machines  in  working  or- 
der for  election. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Yes,  they  have  been  gone  over  twice 
by  somebody  or  other. 

Witness  did  not  solicit  appointment  as  expert.     Wit- 

1281  ness  met  Abbott  and  Chamberlain  for  the  first  time  in 
the  Election  Commissioners'  office  the  day  they  went  be- 
fore Judge  Owens.  Neither  the  Election  Commissioners, 
Judge  Owens,  nor  any  employe  suggested  a  preference  for 
one  machine  or  another  or  interfered  with  the  work  of 
the  experts. 

Witness  gave  70  hours  as  a  rough  estimate  of  the  time 
spent  on  all  four  machines. 

1282  It  was  15  years  ago  that  the  witness  voted  once 
on  a  voting  machine.  At  that  time  he  had  no  knowledge 
of  voting  machines.  Simply  went  in  and  voted.  Does 
not  remember  the  kind  of  machine  it  was. 

The  second  examination  by  the  experts,  that  of  the  70- 
key  Empire  machine,  was  made  about  four  weeks  after 
the  report  on  the  other  machine.  The  second  report  was 
not  signed  at  any  Board  meeting. 

The  second  examination  was  on  the  question  whether 
the  70-key  machine  would  do  the  work  as  well  as  the  50- 
key  machine. 

1283  Witness  thinks  the  same  principles  would  operated  as 
well  in  a  70-key  machine  as  in  a  50-key  machine  and 
the  report  stated  that  they  would  work  on  a  100-key 
machine,  or  twice  that  number. 

If  a  machine  is  enlarged,  it  has  to  be  considerably 
strengthened.  Witness  sees  no  reason  why  the  enlarge- 
ment of  a  machine  w^ould  result  in  an  accumulation  of 
space  down  at  one  end  so  that  the  machine  would  not 
work  properly. 

The  experts'  report  stated  that  the  Empire  machine 
was  rather  heavy,  but,  as  a  mechanical  expert,  witness 
sees  no  way  of  lightening  this  particular  machine  to  any 
appreciable  extent. 

1284  For  a  9-party,  70-key  machine,  with  730  voting  points 


304  Testimony  of  Willia/m  Wooley. 

the  Empire  machine  is  very  well  built.  Witness  does  not 
believe  that  much  weight  could  be  taken  off  the  machine 
with  a  ballot  of  this  size,  the  Chicago  ballot. 

In  relation  to  the  working  of  the  party  key,  the  ma- 
chine examined  by  the  experts  worked  well.  Either  a 
party  lever  or  a  party  key  works  well.  It  is  the  option 
of  the  purchaser. 

In  saying  that  the  Empire  machine  and  the  Triumph 
machine  had  no  device  to  restrict  the  number  of  inspec- 
tions, witness  meant  that  the  judges  who  had  the  keys 
could  go  together  and  move  the  counters.  Witness  says 
the  judge  could  not  move  the  counters.      To  move  the 

1286  counters  the  seal  would  have  to  be  broken  and  the  coun- 
ter device  unlocked.  He  would  have  to  have  the  key  pro- 
vided for  that  purpose. 

1287  Witness  thinks  that  you  cannot  unlock  door  No.  1, 
the  one  on  the  end,  before  the  back  rear  door  is  unlocked ; 
that  is,  lock  No.  3. 

AVhen  the  rear  door  is  unlocked,  the  counters  can  be 
looked  at,  but  not  the  grouping  device.  The  custodian  has 
the  key  to  the  grouping  device,  and  all  that  is  done  to  the 
grouping  device  is  done  before  the  machine  leaves  the 
warehouse.  The  custodian  has  the  key  to  the  lock  on 
the  counters  and  the  grouping  device.  The  judges  do 
not  get  it. 

Witness  does  not  now  remember  the  objection  to  per- 
mitting the  judges  to  look  at  the  counters  more  than  a 
given  number  of  times. 

1288  If  they  stopped  voting  to  go  back  and  look  at  the  coun- 
ters every  15  minutes  it  would  not  affect  the  counters 
any. 

From  his  examination  the  witness  did  not  see  where 
the  voter  could  "beat"   the  machine. 

Witness  could  not  see  where  the  machine  could  be  dis- 
arranged to  register  falsely  without  its  being  detected. 

The  protective  counter  is  enclosed  in  a  metal  case 
which  would  have  to  be  knocked  off  before  you  could  get 
into  it.  It  keeps  on  counting,  is  never  turned  back, 
and  works  in  conjunction  with  the  public  counter  as  a 
check  on  the  judges  ringing  up  extra  votes  on  the  ma- 
chine. The  last  reading  on  the  protective  counter  would 
have  to  tally  with  the  number  of  votes  on  the  public 
counter. 

The  demonstrator  of  each  machine  examined  was  pres- 
ent, but  not  the  opposition  demonstrator. 


» 


Testimony  of  William  Wooley.  305 

1290  Witness'  attention  is  called  to  the  report  of  the  ex- 
perts regarding  the  Empire  machine,  "The  wrong  set- 
ting of  counters"  as  a  possibility  of  fraud,  and  asked  if 
judges  could  do  this,  and  witness  answered:     "He  could 

1291  do  it  with  his  three  keys." 

Under  the  heading  of  "Fraud  by  Custodian,"  the  re- 
port says,  "Disconnect  actuating  mechanism  from  one 
or  more  keys,"  witness  is  asked  if  this  could  not  be 
readily  discovered  by  the  voter  and  says,  "If  the  cus- 
todian could  disconnect  those  keys  in  such  a  way  that 
the  keys  would  operate  themselves,  but  still  be  discon- 
nected from  the  counters,  the  voter  would  have  no  way 
of — the  voter  would  have  no  way  of  telling." 

Witness  could  not  say  whether  this  could  be  done  or 
not. 

The  voting  key,  even  when  disconnected  from  the  ae- 
uating  mechanism,  might  be  fixed  by  the  custodian  so 
it  would  pull  up  or  stay  down  as  he  pleased. 

1292  The  experts  opened  the  machine  so  as  to  see  the  ac- 
tuating mechanism  between  the  voting  key  and  the  coun- 
ter. Witness  cannot  recall  whether  he  saw  any  parts 
that  might  be  changed  or  interfered  with  so  that  a  dis- 
connected voting  key  would  work  as  though  it  were  con- 
nected. 

1293  Witness  cannot  describe  the  actuating  mechanism. 
"Q.    You  say  in  your  report,  'Absolute  proof  against 

fraud  by  custodians,  judges  or  voters,  or  by  connivance 
by  two  or  more  of  these  parties,  is,  of  course,  impossible, 
but  certain  precautions  may  be  taken  which  will  make  vot- 
ing machines  reasonably  secure  in  this  respect."  Have 
you  in  mind  now  any  precautions  which  might  be  taken 
to  make  a  voting  machine  secure?    A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  _  Do  you  think  a  rubber  band  can  be  used  on  this 
machine?    A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Isn't  that  one  of  the  objections  to  a  party  lever, 
in  that  rubber  bands  can  be  used  more  easily  on  a  party 
lever  machine?  A.  I  think  we  had  that  rubber  band  in 
the  report;  I  think  you  will  find  it  in  there. 

Q.  You  say  here, — changing  the  subject  slightly — 
'Your  commission  considers  that  the  designers  of  the 
machine  can  easily  provide  protection  which  will  prevent 
a  judge  from  so  tampering  with  the  machine,'  that  is, 
rubber  bands, — let  me  go  back  a  little — you  first  refer 
to  rubber  bands,  and  then  you  go  on  with  this:  'A 
more  serious  matter,  however,  is  the  possibility  with 


306  Testimony  of  William  Wooley. 

this  same  machine  of  disconnecting  an  individual  counter 
from  a  party  lever,  which  can  be  done  by  the  custodian 
before  the  machine  is  sent  out  or  by  the  judge  at  the 
time  of  his  inspection  at  the  polling  place.  Your  com- 
mission considers  that  the  designers  of  the  machine  can 
easily  provide  protection  which  will  prevent  a  judge  from 
so  tampering  with  the  machine,  and  a  rule  requiring 
judges  to  test  all  voting  levers  and  keys  before  the  polls 
are  opened,  would  detect  any  false  setting  on  the  part  of 
the  custodian.' 

Do  you  think  the  judge  in  the  polling  place  would  be  a 
check  on  any  fraudulent  setting  of  the  machine?  A.  No, 
I  think  we  had  in  mind  then  that  instead  of  setting  the 
machine  at  zero,  set  all  the  counters  at  999  and  put  the 
machine  in  operation  at  the  booth,  and  have  the  judges 
vote  once  and  go  to  the  rear  and  then  have  another  in- 
spection to  see  if  all  the  counters  had  gone  to  zero. 

Q.  Your  idea  was  to  use  the  judges  as  inspectors  on 
the  machine  as  well!    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  would  immediately  detect  any  disconnection 
of  a  counter?     A.     Yes,  sir. 

1295  As  to  the  material  used  in  the  machine  the  witness 
could  not  make  any  objection  to  it. 

1296  The  witness'  bill  for  services  was  $350,  Mr.  Chamber- 
lain's bill  was  $725.  Witness  did  not  know  what  they 
charged.     His  price  was  $25  a  day. 

Witness  does  not  consider  himself  a  voting  machine  ex- 
pert. 

Before  the  examination  of  the  machines  nothing  had 
been  said  to  the  witness  or  the  expert  about  not  per- 
mitting demonstrators  of  other  machines  to  be  present 
during  the  examination  of  any  particular  machine. 

Witness  says,  "Well,  when  a  man  is  demonstrating  his 
own  machine,  he  should  demonstrate  his,  and  not  the 
other  fellow's.  That  is  why  we  did  not  want  the  other 
fellows  around." 

1297  The  demonstrator  of  his  own  machine  would  not  give 
bad  points,  only  good  points. 

Witness  does  not  believe  that  the  counter  used  on  the 
Empire  machine  is  a  Veeder  meter.  Thinks  that  it  is 
made  by  the  Empire  people  themselves. 

1298  The  counters  on  the  other  machines  were  different 
from  each  other  and  from  those  on  the  Empire. 

"Senator  Barb.    I  just  want  to  ask  the  Governor,  does 


The  One-Minute  Voting  Requirement.  307 

the   State   law   require   that  they  could  be  voted  in  a 
minute  f 

'Mr.  Deneen.    a  minute,  yes. 

"Senator  Babr.  Q.  Mr.  Wooley,  did  I  understand  you 
to  say  this  morning  tliat  they  could  not  vote  one  of  the 
primary  ballots  in  a  minute? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  The  primary  of  last  year,  of  April, 
1912. 

"Senator  Bare.    Yes. 

"The  Witness.  A.  No,  I  said  they  could  not  vote 
that  primary  in  a  minute. 

"Senator  Babb..  Q.  Did  you  report  that  this  machine 
complied  with  the  State  law? 

"A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  I  just  don't  understand  how  you  reported  that, 
when  the  State  law  requires  that  it  should  vote  in  a  minute 
and  you  state  they  can't  vote  this  particular  ballot  in  a 
minute.    I  don't  understand  your  position  on  that. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.     May  I  suggest,  that  the  election  of 
1299  April,  1912,  was  held  a  year  after,  or  nearly  a  year  after 

the  examination  on  which  they  made  their  report? 
1302  Witness  is  asked  as  to  his  statement  that  a  key  discon- 
nected from  its  actuating  mechanism  could  be  pulled 
down  and  go  back  to  the  voting  position  as  though  it  were 
still  connected,  but  says  that  they  could  manipulate  any 
machine. 

1304  Witness  will  not  state  whether  there  is  any  objection 
to  any  machine  because  it  will  not  accommodate  the  large 
Chicago  primary  ticket  and  says  that  "the  big  ballot  had 
not  been  out  when  we  examined  it." 

1305  Witness  would  not  state  whether  it  is  an  objection  now 
that  the  big  ballots  are  out. 

"Senator  Babb.  Of  course,  they  had  the  same  law 
then  as  they  had  now,  as  I  understand  it. 

' '  Senator  Canaday.  I  would  like  to  get  the  opinions  of 
the  attornej'S  on  both  sides  as  to  whethey  they  believe 
that  this  law  contemplates  voting  in  a  primary  election." 

1306  "Senator  Landee.  This  law,  as  I  understand  it,  was 
passed  in  1903. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Yes.  There  was  no  primary  election 
law  in  the  state  at  that  time,  it  was  passed  in  1907,  I  be- 
lieve, 1907. 

"Senator  Babb.    Oh,  there  was  no  primary  law  then? 


308  Method  of  Finding  Pull  on  Lever. 

' '  Mr.  Dekeen.  Yes,  there  was  a  primary  law  then,  but 
not  this  one. 

1315  Witness  thinks  that  it  is  necessary  to  pull  the  voting 
key  down  to  the  bottom  in  order  that  it  may  register. 

To  determine  the  pull  on  the  lever  of  the  Winslow  Ma- 
chine, which  is  said  in  the  report  to  be  75  pounds,  witness 
thinks  the  expert  used  a  spring  scale  either  75  or  50 

1316  pounds,  and  which  the  lever  pulled  to  the  end.  Witness 
cannot  say  how  that  takes  exactly  the  pull. 

"Q.  Didn't  you  have,  in  fact,  a  50-pound  scale  and 
estimated  it  and  didn't  you  say  then,  'Well,  we  will  give 
it  50  per  cent,  more  and  make  it  75  on  the  Winslow  Ma- 
chine!' A.  I  think  that  was  right,  I  think  it  was  a  50- 
pound.  W^e  pulled  the  full  capacity  of  the  scale  and  the 
lever  would  not  work  and  so  we  put  20  to  25  pounds  more 
to  it."    • 

1317  The  witness  would  not  think  the  present  machine  free 
from  criticism  if  the  changes  recommended  by  the  ex- 
perts' report  had  not  been  made. 

Witness  had  in  mind  in  the  suggestion  that  counters 
should  be  set  at  999  and  the  election  judges  make  an  ex- 
perimental vote  a  check  on  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  cus- 
todian. 

1318  Otherwise  there  would  be  no  check  on  the  custodian. 

1319  "Mr.  Deneen.  This  is  your  report  (reading):  'Pro- 
visions— the  provisions  are  there  prescribed  and  recited 
— and  recite  the  number  of  inspections  of  counters  by  the 
election  judges  before  and  after  the  hours  of  voting.' 
(Beading) :  'Your  experts  consider  it  highly  desirable 
to  make  provision  for  a  limited  number  of  inspections 
by  judges,  which  provision  is  made  in  the  International 
and  the  Winslow  but  it  is  not  provided  for  in  the  Tri- 
umph and  the  Empire.    It  seems  that  it  would  be  a  rather 

1320  simple  matter  to  include  such  an  attachment  in  the  mech- 
anism of  these  two  named  machines.'  You  remember 
the  International  punched  a  ticket  in  the  morning?" 

Witness  remembers  that  the  International  machine 
made  an  impression  or  printed  copy  of  the  counters. 

1321  Witness  thinks  that  fraud  might  be  perpetrated  on  the 
International  by  somebody  moving  the  counters  after  the 
impression  was  taken. 

1322  In  suggesting  that  the  Empire  machine  should  be 
placed  by  the  custodian  at  999  and  the  judges  take  an 
experimental  vote  upon  it  in  the  morning,  putting  it  at 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  309 

zero,  the  experts  had  in  mind  that  the  judges  would  be 
better  able  to  determine  in  that  way  whether  the  machine 
was  in  working  order  and  whether  the  custodian  had  tam- 
pered with  it.  As  the  machine  is,  there  is  no  such  check 
against  the  custodian! 

The  experts  investigated  to  see  whether  fraud  could 
be  committed  on  the  machine  by  anybody,  by  the  judges, 
voters  or  custodians. 

1323  The  witness  says  the  voter  could  commit  fraud  upon 
the  International  if  he  was  possessed  of  a  key.    He  would 

•  have  to  have  five  keys  to  do  it  on  the  Empire.  If  the 
voter  had  five  keys  to  do  it  he  would  be  very  readily 
found  out. 

The  judges  with  five  keys  could  do  it.  They  already 
had  three. 

1324  Witness  didn't  consider  this  a  defect  in  the  machine. 

1325  Witness  thinks  there  should  be  a  check  on  the  cus- 
todian, on  the  judges,  and  on  the  voter,  with  any  machine. 

Clakbnce  E.  DePuy: 

1326  Lives  at  411  North  Elmwood,  Oak  Park.  Is  a  teacher 
at  Lewis  Institute.  Witness  has  charge  of  the  shop  at 
the  Lewis  Institute  and  also  of  some  of  the  machine  de- 
signs, pneumatics. 

The  Lewis  Institute  is  a  polytechnical  school  for  many 
branches  of  work,  including  mechanical  and  electrical 
engineering.  It  has  a  student  body  of  960  day  students 
and  2,000  night  students.  About  2,500  night  students  last 
year.  It  has  a  faculty  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood 
of  50,  and  the  Institute  ranks  with  the  best  of  its  kind  in 
the  country.  Witness  has  been  Professor  in  the  Lewis 
Institute  about  17  years. 

1327  The  witness  has  been  called  at  various  times  to  exam- 
ine voting  machines,  the  first  time  in  the  fall  of  1907. 
Chief  Clark  Powell  had  told  Mr.  Carmon,  director  of  the 
Institute,  that  he  wanted  someone  to  examine  voting  ma- 
chines. Witness  told  Mr.  Carmon  that  he  knew  nothing 
about  voting  machines,  but  had  given  a  great  deal  of  at- 
tention along  similar  lines  of  mechanism. 

Witness  later  called  on  Mr.  Powell  and  went  with  him 
to  see  Judge  Binaker. 

1328  Witness  was  thereupon  employed  as  expert.  On  the 
first  examination  the  witness  had  to  take  care  of  his 


310  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

classes  up  to  3  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  and  spent  several 
weeks  in  the  examination  which  began  sometime  in  Octo- 
ber and  was  not  ended  until  nearly  the  end  of  November, 

The  report  made  by  the  witness  at  that  time  has  been 
presented  at  this  hearing  and  read. 

Later  the  witness  was  called  upon  by  the  Election  Com- 
mission to  examine  another  set  of  machines.  This  was 
in  March,  1908. 

There  were  six  machines  in  the  first  lot  and  six  ma- 
chines in  the  second  lot.    Four  of  the  same  machines. 

1329  The  second  examination  covered  a  long  time,  but  the- 
witness  thinks  not  quite  so  long  as  the  first  time. 

Witness'  associates  as  experts  were  the  same  men  in 
both  cases,  Mr.  Olson  and  Mr.  Leutweiler,  and  in  the  first 
examination  Mr.  Breckenridge  of  the  University  of  Illi- 
nois. The  experts  worked  independently  and  none  knew 
who  the  others  were. 

Witness  examined  the  voting  machines  for  Election 
Commissioners  the  third  time  in  the  fall  of  1909.  This 
examination  extended  over  several  weeks  also.  The  wit- 
ness' time  on  each  examination  was  broken,  as  he  could 
devote  only  part  of  his  time  to  the  work. 

1330  The  same  men  acted  as  experts  on  this  examination. 
There  were  four  machines  on  the  third  examination, 

the  Triumph,  the  Empire,  the  Wilcox  and  the  Winslow. 
This  examination  was  made  by  the  experts  individually. 
Neither  expert  saw  the  others  until  the  examination  was 
all  over,  and  then  they  were  called  together  in  the  Com- 
missioners' room  to  go  to  the  machines  and  do  what  they 
could  with  them.  That  is  the  first  time  the  experts  met, 
sometime  in  October,  1909. 

The  so-called  "Knock  Fest"  was  held  in  1907  and  was 
between  the  machine  men  themselves.  The  experts  who 
had  been  examining  the  machines  for  the  Board  were  not 
in  that. 

1331  The  witness  also  participated  in  another  examination 
for  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in  the  summer 
of  1910.  The  commissioners  wanted  the  report  as  soon 
as  they  could  get  it. 

The  first  machine  ready  for  examination  was  the  Em- 
pire. Witness  examined  that  machine  and  made  report 
July  1st.  At  that  time  that  was  the  only  machine  ready 
for  examination. 

The  next  machine  that  came  for  examination  was  the 


The  Empire  Voting  Machine.  311 

Triumph.    The  witness  examined  that  and  made  his  re- 
port July  20th. 

The  next  machine  examined  was  the  Calkins  and  the 
report  made  in  August. 

The  witness  has  made  no  examinations  since  of  other 
.  machines. 

Witness  has  heard  these  reports  read  by  Judge  Mc- 
Ewen,  who  introduced  them  in  evidence. 

The  witness  has  been  making  an  examination  of  an 
Empire  machine  recently. 
1332  He  began  about  2|  weeks  ago  and  has  been  associated 
with  Mr.  Olson  and  Prof.  Leutweiler.  The  examination 
was  made  in  the  La  Salle  Hotel,  where  the  machine  was 
under  examination  at  the  request  of  the  Legislative  In- 
vestigating Committee  for  nearly  three  weeks. 

Mr.  Deneen  produces  a  memorandum  containing  report 
of  examination  of  voting  machines  which  is  in  the  form 
of  question  and  answ^er.  The  questions  are  read  to  the 
witness  and  the  witness  gives  the  answers  from  tliis 
memorandum,  as  follows : 

1353  The  questions  read  from  and  answers  given  from  the 
memorandum  are  admitted  in  evidence  subject  to  with- 
drawal upon  objection. 

The  witness  thinks  the  workmanship  of  the  Empire 
machine  is  good.  It  is  composed  of  steel,  bronze,  alumi- 
num, composition  metal,  white  metal. 

1354  In  the  Empire  machine  examined  by  the  witness  re- 
cently, some  parts  were  protected  from  corrosion  by 
enamel,  some  were  shererdized  and  some  were  copper- 
plated.  In  many  places  this  is  satisfactory;  in  some 
places  not.  Some  places  on  the  machine  examined  already 
show  evidence  of  corrosion.  Witness  does  not  think  this 
serious  at  present. 

1355  In  the  course  of  time  there  might  be  trouble  through 
rusting.  Not  all  the  steel  parts  are  protected  from  cor- 
rosion. Some  of  the  springs  are  not,  and  the  restricting 
rollers  in  the  bottom  of  machine  do  not  seem  to  be. 

A  voter  could  commit  fraud  while  concealed  by  the  cur- 
tain of  the  voting  machine. 

"  Q.    In  what  way  or  ways  ? " 

(Thereupon  members  of  the  legislative  committee  and 
the  witness  and  counsel  went  back  to  the  voting  machine 

1356  present  in  the  room  and  the  examination  was  continued 
at  the  machine. 


312  Some  Frauds  Possible  on  Empire  Machine. 

Q.  Can  a  voter  commit  fraud  while  concealed  by  the 
curtains?    A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  way  or  ways?  A.  A  voter  can  be  pre- 
vented from  voting  for  any  particular  candidate. 

Q.  In  what  way?  A.  By  pressing  a  wire  clip  on  the 
key-handle. 

Q.  Describe  the  wire  clip.  A.  It  is  a  small  coil  of 
wire  with  a  point  bent  at  right  angles  with  the  face  of 
the  coil. 

Q.  What  will  this  do?  A.  By  applying  this  to  the 
handle  of  the  key,  the  wire  protrudes  into  a  channel  in 
the  face  of  the  voting  machine  and  under  the  key,  pre- 
venting the  key  from  being  moved  forward. 

Q.     What  color  is  this  wire  clip?    A.    Black. 

Q.  To  correspond  with  the  color  of  the  machine?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  the  voter  follows  the  instructions  laid  down  for 
the  operation  of  this  machine,  for  voting  a  mixed  ticket, 
how  may  he  be  deprived  of  a  vote  for  any  particular  can- 
didate by  the  use  of  this  clip?  A.  By  moving  downward 
the  keys  for  the  candidates  in  other  parties  for  whom  he 

1357  desires  to  vote,  and  then  fellowing  the  instructions,  run- 
ning his  finger  along  the  horizontal  row  of  the  keys  of 
his  parties  from  right  to  left. 

Q.  What  other  devices,  if  any?  A.  A  wire  bent  in 
the  form  of  a  question  mark,  with  its  point  bent  at  right 
angles,  when  placed  in  the  channel  back  of  a  key,  one  end 
resting  on  the  hub  of  the  key  and  under  the  channel  and 
the  other  end  projecting  under  the  key  and  outward,  pre- 
vents the  key  from  being  moved  downward. 

Q.     Is  there  any  other  device? 

A.     An  angle  strip.     This  is  a  small  piece  of  sheet 

1358  metal  bent  in  the  form  of  an  angle.  This  is  placed  in 
the  right-hand  corner  of  an  aperture  in  the  irregular 
slides,  the  lower  end  resting  on  the  top  of  the  slide,  the 
upper  resting  in  the  upper  right-hand  corner  of  the  aper- 
ture.   This  prevents  the  slide  from  being  moved  upward. 

Q.  How  is  the  angle  steel  concealed?  A.  No  attempt 
is  made  to  conceal  it,  but  the  edge  only  is  visible  and  is 
so  thin  as  to  be  scarcely  visible  and  unnoticeable  unless 
called  to  one's  attention,  and  then  only  with  a  strong 
light  and  good  eyes.  It  is  made  the  same  color  as  the 
slide. 


Fraudulent  Manipulations  Demonstrated.  313 

Mr.  Dbneen.  Q.  These  little  pieces  of  metal  are  all 
made  by  hand,  are  they,  Professor  f 

A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  is  there  another  angle  strip,  is  there  any 
other  device?  A.  An  angle  strip.  This  is  a  small  piece 
1359  of  sheet  metal  bent  in  the  form  of  an  angle.  This  is 
placed  in  the  right-hand  corner  of  the  aperture  in  the 
irregular  slide,  the  lower  end  resting  on  the  top  of  the 
slide,  the  upper  resting  in  the  upper  right-hand  corner 
of  the  aperture.  This  prevents  the  slide  from  being 
moved  upwards. 

Q.  Now,  I  think  we  might  describe  further.  The  angle 
steel  is  put  in  one  of  these  slides  (indicating)  ?    A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  would  like  to  have  the  Committee  try 
that,  and  then  later  after  they  have  tried  it,  see  if  they 
can  find  any  defects,  find  out  what  the  trouble  is. 

Q.     You  have  to  move  them  up  to  write  the  name  in. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Let  Judge  McEwen  do  it,  too. 

The  Witness.    Several  of  them  won't  drop. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Several  of  them  won't  drop;  what 
is  the  reason,  what  is  the  trouble? 

The  Chairman.    Pull  them  all ;  they  ought  to  act  freely. 

Mr.  Dbneen.  Which  one  is  that!  Let  us  see  what  the 
trouble  is  with  number  four,  it  being  the  first  one.  Let 
us  take  them  as  they  come,  four  and  eight,  see  what  the 
trouble  is. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  see  any  trouble  there.  Senator 
Landee? 

Mr.  Deneen.  Now,  has  the  Committee  examined  them 
enough  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Canaday,  do  you  want  to  ex- 
amine this?    Step  over. 

Mr.  Deneen.  When  you  are  through  I  will  ask  him 
some  questions,  to  explain  the  matter,  to  explain  what 
the  trouble  is. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Professor,  will  you  tell  what  the 
trouble  is,  and  tell  it  to  the  Committee? 

A.  A  small  strip  of  angle  steel  is  placed  in  that  slide 
(indicating)  above  the  spindle;  pull  one  of  them  out  and 
it  shows  what  is  the  matter  with  it  here  (indicating). 

Q.  Now,  tell  to  the  Committee  what  the  trouble  is  with 
it.  A.  The  machine  must  be  so  a  voter  can  vote  any 
candidate  he  wants,  and  the  independent  ticket. 

Q.    Will  you  describe  now  the  angle  strip?    Let  him 


314  The  "Angle  Steel"  and  the  Rubber  Bamd. 

1360  describe  it.  Now  you  may  describe  it,  Professor.  A. 
An  angle  strip.  This  is  a  small  piece  of  sheet  metal  bent 
in  the  form  of  an  angle.  This  is  placed  in  the  right-hand 
corner  of  an  aperture  in  the  irregular  slides,  the  lower 
end  resting  on  the  top  of  the  slide,  the  upper  resting  in 
the  upper  right-hand  corner  of  the  aperture.  This  pre- 
vents the  slide  from  being  moved  upward. 

Q.  How  is  the  angle  steel  concealed?  A.  No  attempt 
is  made  to  conceal  it,  but  the  edge  only  is  visible  and  is  so 
thin  as  to  be  scarcely  visible  and  unnoticeable  unless 
called  to  one's  attention  and  then  only  with  a  strong  light 
and  good  eyes.     It  is  made  the  same  color  as  the  slide. 

1361  Now,  will  you  ask  the  question,  Governor. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Professor,  can  a  voter  place  a  rub- 
ber band  on  these  keys  to  prevent  the  movement  of  any  of 
the  keys ;  is  there  any  other  device  that  a  voter  can  place 
on  the  machine  when  back  of  the  curtain? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  this  rubber  band. 

Q.  Put  a  rubber  band  on  one  of  them?  A.  A  rubber 
band  is  not  a  very  good  device  to  try  to  use  on  a  voting 
machine. 

Q.     Put  one  on  the  machine.    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Eight  in  front  of  them,  and  then  they  can  see  how 
it  is  worked.  I  suggest  that  they  be  put  so  the  Commit- 
tee can  see  it  in  the  grouping  device,  and  then  they  can  see 
whether  the  voter  would  see  it. 

The  Chairman.  Here  is  a  man  voting  the  straight  Re- 
publican ticket,  and  of  course  it  is  understood  that  he 
comes  along  and  votes ;  he  stands  up  in  front  of  the  ma- 
chine and  votes  for  the  Republican  ticket  and  throws  his 
hand  along  like  this.  Now,  of  course,  he  doesn't  know 
that  that  rubber  band  is  there,  is  there  nothing  to  call 
his  attention  to  that? 

Mr.  Deneen.  Especially  in  groupings  like  County 
Commissioners. 

The  Chairman.  He  would  never  discover  it.  A  man  may 
go  in  there  and  then  within  thirty  minutes  another  man 
would  come  in,  then  within  the  next  thirty  minutes  an- 
other man,  you  could  get  twenty  of  them  in  there  like  that 
working  like  a  team. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Professor,  will  you  describe  the  ef- 
fect of  this  rubber  band  on  the  keys? 

A.  The  rubber  band  on  the  key  allows  the  key  to  go 
down  as  the  voter  pushes  it  in  voting  position,  but  the 


Secrecy  of  Machine  Ballot  Not  Secure.  315 

rubber  band  returns  it  to  nonnal  position,  non-voting  po- 
sition.   Take  a  rubber  band  three-eighths  of  an  inch  long 

1362  and  put  over  the  handle  of  one  key  and  under  the  hub  of 
another  immediately  jjreceding  it  at  the  right.  The  effect 
of  it  is  to  return  the  key  after  having  been  voted  to  its 
non-voting  position  without  registering  a  vote. 

Q.  And  can  the  machine  be  manipulated  by  the  judge 
or  judges?  A.  Yes.  We  have  now  past  what  the  voter 
can  do. 

Q.  Now,  we  come  Jo  what  the  judge  or  judges  can  do. 
I  am  now  calling  your  attention.  Professor,  to  the  judges, 
what  the  judges  of  election  can  do  to  our  machine  by 
manipulating  it  among  each  other.    A.     Yes. 

Q.    And  how?    A.    Yes. 

Q.    In  what  way?    A.    First  the  judges  of  election  may 

1363  have  access  to  the  counters  any  number  of  times.  If 
they  know  the  condition  of  the  counters  before  a  voter 
goes  into  the  booth  and  casts  his  ballots,  they  can  look  at 
the  counters  before  the  next  voter  and  will  know  exactly 
how  the  first  voter  voted.  The  secrecy  of  the  ballot  is 
destroyed.  (2)  The  judges  can  keep  informed  as  to  the 
progress  of  voting  in  elections  and  primaries  and  can  give 
information  to  party  officials  and  workers.  (3)  They 
have  access  to  the  keys  and  can  manipulate  them  in  any 
of  the  ways  heretofore  indicated. 

Q.  What  else  can  the  judges  do?  A.  They  can 
disengage  the  pawl  which  engages  the  ratchet  controlling 
the  irregular  paper  roll  and  by  operating  two  or  more 
widely  separated  shutters  permit  the  voter  in  front  of  the 
machine  to  manipulate  the  paper  roll  by  moistening  his 
fingers  and  pulling  it  downwards.  The  voter  is  thus  able 
to  vote  for  more  than  one  candidate  in  an  irregular  slide 
or  in  several  slides.  If  a  subsequent  voter  desiring  to 
cast  an  independent  vote  finds  a  name  already  written  in 
the  slide  he  opens,  the  only  way  the  judges  can  remedy 
the  situation  and  permit  him  to  vote  requires  them  to  open 
the  door  back  of  the  machine. 

Q.  Now  will  you  show  to  the  Committee  what  you 
mean  by  that,  disengaging  the  pawl  which  engages  the 
ratchet  controlling  the  irregular  paper  roll?     I  suggest 

1364  that  Committee  just  step  around  and  you  will  see  him. 
A.  Now,  by  opening  two  slides  here  we  can  move  the 
paper,  but,  suppose  I  have  written  in  a  name  there  and 


316  Wrong  Setting  of  Counters. 

another  name  in  there  (indicating)  the  paper  cannot  be 
moved  without  operating  the  key. 

Q.  What  else  can  the  judges  do  regarding  the  misread- 
ing intentionally  or  otherwise,  of  the  registers  in  the 
machines'?  A.  He  can  misread  purposely  or  uninten- 
tionally the  registers  in  the  morning.  He  may  make,  pur- 
posely or  unintentionally  erroneous  additions  of  straight, 
split,  independent  and  irregular  ballots.  The  judges  will 
be  able  to  set  the  counters  in  the  machine  before  the  polls 
are  open  if  they  can  gain  access  to  the  compartment  con- 
taining the  counter  locking  device,  and  are  provided  with 
the  necessary  key  to  unlock  that  device. 


VOLUME  XV. 


1366  Morning  Session. 

Friday,  August  1,  1913. 

Clabence  E.  DePuy  resumes  the  stand : 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  will  take  up  where  we  left  off  yester- 
day, if  the  Commission  please. 

Q.  Prof.  DePuy,  what  else  can  the  judges  do?  A.  The 
judge  can  manipulate  the  question  knock-out  in  such  a 
way  as  to  enable  anybody  to  vote  on  all  questions,  and  on 
primary  day  the  judge  may  fix  the  primary  lever  at  zero 
and  enable  the  voter  of  any  party  to  vote  the  primary 
ticket  of  any  party  or  vote  a  split  ticket.  The  judge  may 
also  intentionally  or  otherwise  deprive  the  voter  from 
voting  for  his  party  by  moving  the  lever  while  the  voter 
is  going  into  the  front  of  the  machine. 

Q.  Shall  we  just  demonstrate  that  as  we  did  yester- 
day one  at  a  time,  maybe  we  had  better  do  that. 

Senator  Bark.     I  think  we  better. 

The  Chairman.     If  you  care  to,  it  will  be  just  as  well. 

1367  Are  you  going  back  to  the  machine! 

Mr.  Deneen.  We  will  have  to  arrange  for  the  stenog- 
raphers so  that  they  may  have  access. 

Mr.  Deneen.     Yes,  I  think  we  had  better. 

Whereupon  the  Committee  repaired  to  the  rear  of  the 
room  to  inspect  the  machine  in  a  body,  and  the  following 
proceedings  were  had  in  front  of  the  machine. 


Manipulation  of  Question  Lockout.  317 

Mr.  Deneen.     What  else  can  the  judges  do,  professor? 

A.  The  judge  can  manipulate  the  question  lock-out 
in  such  a  way  as  to  enable  anybody  to  vote  on  all  ques- 
tions, and  on  primary  day  the  judge  may  fix  the  primary 
lever  at  zero  and  enable  the  voter  of  any  party  to  vote 
the  primary  ticket  of  any  party  or  vote  a  split  ticket. 
1368  The  judge  may  also  intentionally  or  othermse  deprive 
the  voter  from  voting  for  his  party  by  moving  the  lever 
while  the  voter  is  going  into  the  front  of  the  machine. 

Q.  Now,  what  else  can  the  judges  do?  A.  The  ques- 
tion lock  up  there  is  at  this  end,  in  general  elections  there 
is  nothing  to  prevent  the  judge  from  moving  this  at  any 
time.  If  it  is  set  there,  they  can  vote  on  questions  from 
one  to  five,  and  if  here,  from  five  to  ten,  and  here,  all 
above  ten,  and  if  set  there  they  can  vote  for  nothing. 

Representative  Jayke.  This  can  be  set  so  that  a  woman 
can  vote  on  a  man's  question? 

A.  Yes,  if  the  questions  were  put  on  the  machine  in 
such  a  way  that  it  would  restrict  the  question  which  the 
women  were  expected  to  vote  on,  it  could  be  set  so  that  the 
women  cannot  vote  from  one  to  ten,  or  it  could  be  set  so 
that  the  women's  questions  could  be  from  one  to  ten 
and  the  questions  for  men  beyond  that,  and  then  if  this 
was  set  at  this  point,  only  the  questions  from  one  to  ten 
could  be  voted  for,  and  if  at  this  point  then  the  questions* 
beyond  ten,  this  time,  could  be  voted. 

Mr.  Deneen.  When  you  say  this  point  and  that  point, 
will  you  explain  it  so  the  reporters  will  get  it. 

A.     Zero,  one,  two,  three  and  four. 
.1369     Mr.  Dexeen.    When  set  at  zero,  they  can  vote  any- 
where? 

A.     Yes,  they  can  vote  anywhere. 

Representative  Jayne.  If  men  and  women  voted  alter- 
natively twenty-five  or  thirty  times,  the  judge  would  have 
to  keep  changing  this  each  time? 

A.    Yes. 

(The  committee,  counsel  and  witness  go  to  the  machine 
present  in  the  room.) 

The  witness  states  that  the  judges  could,  intention- 
ally or  otherwise,  deprive  the  voter  from  voting  for  his 
party  by  moving  the  party  lever  while  the  voter  is  going 
into  the  booth. 

The  judges  can,  by  manipulating  the  question  lock-out 


318  Prof.  BePuy  Makes  a  Duplicate  Key. 

permit  women  to  vote  on  questions  not  permitted  them 
by  the  law. 

There  is  no  way  in  which  the  judge  could  prevent  the 
voter  from  using  the  party  key  at  the  left  hand  end  in 
the  row  devoted  to  Independent  candidates  on  the  Em- 
pire machine  as  at  present  constructed. 

There  is  no  Independent  Party  but  there  is  a  party  key 
at  the  end  of  the  row  for  Independent  candidates  and  this 
key  cannot  be  locked  as  the  machine  is  constructed. 

There  is  no  restricting  device  as  long   as    the   party 
column  is  in  use. 
1371     The  candidates  on  the  Independent  row  do  not  belong 
to  the  same  party,  but  may  be  opposed  to  each  other. 

1373  The  custodian  cannot  fix  the  machine  so  that  the  voter, 
when  he  pulls  do^\^l  the  party  key,  votes  for  all  the  candi- 
dates. That  is  a  matter  of  construction  of  a  vote  on  the 
party  key  given  by  the  judges. 

1374  The  judges  may  have  duplicate  keys  made  like  the 
keys  of  the  custodian  by  connivance  with  somebody  in 
the  custodian's  office.  This  is  not  a  difficult  operation. 
Witness  has  made  duplicate  keys  for  the  present  machine 
since  he  got  the  keys. 

"The  Witness.  There  is  a  duplicate  to  the  lower  key, 
Lock  No.  4,  and  there  is  a  key  to  the  lock  that  sets  the 
counters. 

"I  have  not  had  the  keys  in  my  hands  more  than  five 
minutes  since  the  kej's  were  delivered. 

"This  one  I  made  from  an  impression  on  a  piece  of 
blotting  paper." 

' '  The  Witness.  This  one,  a  Yale  lock  key,  I  made  from 
a  little  device  which  any  locksmith  has. ' ' 

1375  The  legislative  restricting  device  can  be  set  so  that  the 
voter  can  vote  more  than  the  legal  number  of  votes  for 
Representatives  for  the  General  Assembly.  The  device 
can  be  set  so  the  voter  can  vote  for  three,  four,  five  or 
six. 

1376  The  custodian  can  set  the  counters  so  that  the  vote 
will  not  be  indicated  on  the  machine  as  set  by  the  voter. 

(The  Committee  and  the  counsel  thereupon  inspected 
the  counters  at  the  rear  of  the  voting  machine.) 

The  public  counter  is  read  as  standing  at  0-15,  and  the 
protective  counter  at  003069. 

1377  Mr.  Deneen  states  that  the  judges  of  election  are  re- 


Experimental  Voting  by  Committee.  319 

quired  to  inspect  the  counters  before  the  election  begins 
to  see  that  they  are  all  set  at  zero. 
1378  Members  of  the  Committee  inspect  and  read  the  coun- 
ters on  the  back  of  the  machine  as  follows:  42-E,  1  vote; 
38-D,  1  vote;  38-0,  1  vote;  37-D,  1  vote;  15-E,  1  vote; 
10-E,  1  vote ;  6-E,  1  vote. 

(The  doors  of  the  machine  are  then  closed  and  certain 
members  of  the  committee,  a  Democratic  and  a  Pro- 
gressive member  vote  upon  the  machine.) 

"Mr.  Deneeist.  Now.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  ask  that  one 
Democratic  member  of  the  committee  vote  16  votes  and 
one  Progressive  member  vote  16  votes  and  let  the  other 
members  of  the  committee  keep  count  and  see  that  they 
vote  16.  Will  you  select  one  of  the  Democrats  a'nd  one 
Progressive! 

"Mr.  McEwEx.     Whv  16?    Why  not  17? 

"The  Chairman.    Make  it  18  or  20. 

"Mr.  McEwEx.     There  must  be  some  magic  about  that. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Let  him  say  any  number,  but  don't 
make  it  too  long  a  number. 

"Mr.  McEwen.     I  will  sav  number  22." 

Senator  Canaday  voted  22  times  on  a  straight  Demo- 
cratic ticket. 

Eepresentative  Jayne  voted  22  times    straight    Pro- 
gressive ticket. 
1379-1382    Mr.  Deneen.     Now  we  will  have  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  cast  twenty-two  votes  for  Judge 
Einaker  as  States  Attorney  and  the  same  for  Mr.  Hoyne. 

Senator  Barr  does  the  casting  for  Einaker  and  Hovne. 

The  Chairman.     The  public  counter  now  shows  103. 

Mr.  McEwEN.     How  much  does  it  show?    103? 

The  Chairman.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.  You  voted  twenty-two  for  the  Progress- 
ive, twenty-two  for  the  Democratic,  that  is  forty-four,  and 
twenty-two  for  Einaker  and  twenty-two  for  Hoyne,  that  is 
eighty-eight. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    It  ought  to  be  103. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  look  at  it?  103  is  the  public 
counter.  Now  read  the  total  here  on  the  protective  coun- 
ter, this  is  003157. 

Whereupon  the  rear  doors  to  the  machine  were  opened 
and  the  counters  left  open  for  inspection  of  the  commit- 
tee. 


k 


320  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

The  Chairman  (reading  the  counters):  "B-12,  F-32, 
A-24-6;  B-24,  38. 

1379  Mr.  McEwEN.     We  want  the  opportunity  to  inspect  the 
counters. 

The  Chairman.  Without  it  being  touched  we  will  ex- 
plain how  it  is  done. 

Mr.  Deneen.  May  the  Commission  remain  here,  and 
Judge  McEwen  too,  and  we  will  tell  you  how  it  is  done. 

1380  Mr.  McEwEN.     I  suppose  you  changed  the  counters. 
The  counter- wheels.    We  don't  want  those  changed. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  mechanism  changed  in 
the  machine,  we  shall  show  how  that  is  done  now. 

Mr.  Deneen.     Will  you  explain  how  this  was  done? 

Q.     The  set  of  operating  counters — 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  key,  is  that  your  key,  the 
one  you  made? 

A.  Yes.  The  machine  will  have  to  be  set  in  that  posi- 
tion ready  to  vote. 

The  Chairman.     All  right,  is  that  all  right? 

A.  That  is  all  right.  Now,  with  that  in  that  position 
this  key  can  be  turned. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Just  a  minute,  this  kev,  what  key  is 
that? 

A.     This  key,  this  is  the  custodian's  key. 

Mr.  Deneen.     For  what? 

A.     To  fit  this  lock. 

Q.  I  know,  but  what  lock?  A.  The  one  inside  the 
case  of  the  machine,  which  controls  the  setting  of  the 
counters  with  this  in  this  position,  naturally  the  counters 
cannot  be  moved. 

Q.  What  does  it  operate?  A.  This  handle  in  the 
upper  position,  he  has  moved  the  lever  into  position 
ready  to  vote.  Insert  the  key  and  turn  the  key  around. 
This  bolt  in  the  lock  shoots  both  ways,  this  prevents 
the  dial  from  being  voted,  that  machine  could  not  move 
with  this  handle,  but  that  releases  this  handle  and  it  now 
moves  down. 

Q.     This  releases  the  lower  handle?    A.    The  counter 

1381  operating  handle,  and  now  these  counters  can  be  set 
either  to  zero  or  any  number  you  mind  to. 

Q.  Set  them  as  they  were  on  the  straight  tickets.  Now 
as  to  Mr.  Hoyne  and  Mr.  Rinaker?  A.  This  was  set  at 
12  and  this  was  set  at  32.  Now  at  the  beginning — 


Cotmters  Set  Above  and  Beloiv  Zero.  321 

Senator  Landee.  It  read  32,  you  counted  22  votes,  did 
you  not? 

A.  Yes,  before  they,  started  you  see  they  set  it  at  a 
certain  figure, — 

Senator  Babr.     So  that  thev  covered  it? 

A.    Yes. 

Senator  Babr.    Was  that  covered  up? 

A.    Yes. 

Mr.  McEwEN.     You  covered  up  the  one? 

A.     Covered  up  the  one. 

Mr.  Deneen.     Did  you  do  that,  or  one  of  the  others? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  have  not — 

Mr.  Deneen.    Is  Mr.  Leutweiler  here? 

The  Witness.  This  one  is  set  10  ahead,  and  the  other 
we  set  at  990. 

Mr.  McEwEK.  You  have  got  to  have  the  key  to  set  the 
counters  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Senator  Barb.     That  is  the  custodian's  key? 

A.    Yes. 

Senator  Babe.  It  would  be  nothing  for  the  custodian 
to  set  them  before  if  he  wants  to,  at  the  custodian's 
place? 

A.    Yes. 

Q.    And  the  judges  could  not  detect  it? 

A.    No. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    If  they  vote  one  vote,  however,  then 
they  would  get  it? 
1382    Representative  Jayne.     They  would  not.    They  would 
have  to  vote  a  test  vote  every  day? 

The  Witness.     That  would  not  show  the  counters. 

The  Chairman.     Show  how  you  did  it. 

A.    On  24-A  and  24-B  we  did  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  McEwEN.     You  set  back  each  of  those. 

The  Witness.    Yes. 

The  Chairman.     Set  it  back  16  and  set  it  ahead  16? 

The  Witness.     Just  a  little  piece  of  paper  that  we  put 
on  there,  that  is  made  out  of  a  piece  of  paper  with  a  little 
zero  painted  on,  and  with  aluminum  paint,  and  a  little 
1383-4  stick  'em  on  the  back. 

Senator  Canaday.     Where  does  that  go  to? 

A.  The  rest  of  the  mechanism  peels  it  off,  it  cannot 
do  any  damage  to  the  machine;  ultimately,  of  course  the 
custodian  will  find  that  at  the  bottom  of  the  machine. 


322  Other  Frauds  by  Custodian. 

The  Chairman.    Yes,  but  where  would  the  blame  go 
then? 
A.     I  would  not  want  to  find  it, 

1383  Mr.  Deneen.     Q.    What,  if  anything,  can  the  custo- 
dian do  in  reference  to  the  manipulation  of  the  machine? 

A.  He  may  remove  a  split  vote  restriction  clip  for  any 
candidate  and  enable  the  voter  to  cast  a  vote  for  the 
straight  party  ticket  and  another  vote  for  the  particular 
candidate  whose  restriction  clip  has  been  removed.  He 
may,  for  instance,  place  a  set  of  counters  at  980,  which  is 
tantamount  to  starting  them  at  twenty  below  zero.  When 
the  machine  arrives  at  zero  on  this  set  of  counters  all 
record  of  the  twenty  votes  cast  disappears,  thus  com- 
pensating for  another  set  of  counters  which  have  been  set 
at  twenty  to  give  a  favored  candidate  twenty  votes  to 
start  with.  The  custodian  may  place  a  facsimile  of  the 
zeros  on  the  counters,  the  facsimile  made  of  paper  which 
may  be  placed  over  any  figure  or  figures  in  the  three 
columns  of  the  counters,  concealing  the  original  figures 
and  thus  permitting  a  machine  to  appear  to  stand  at  zero 
when  in  fact  it  registers  some  votes.  When  the  register 
is  again  turned  in  voting,  the  paper  facsimile  can  drop 
into  the  lower  part  of  the  machine,  to  which  the  custodian 
alone  has  access. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  about  what  the  custodian  can  do  re- 
garding the  paper  vote  in  the  mechanism  controlling  it. 
A.  The  custodian  may  also  remove  the  pawl  engaging 
the  ratchet  controlling  the  independent  paper  roll  in  the 
same  way  that  it  can  be  manipulated  by  the  .iudges,  and 
this  manipulation  might  be  undiscovered  bj^  the  judges 
in  their  inspection  the  day  of  election. 

1384  Q.  What  can  the  custodian  do  in  regard  to  giving  a 
representative  more  votes  than  the  law  permits  ?  A.  The 
custodian  may  also  arrange  the  machine  to  allow  three 
votes  to  be  cast  for  each  representative  candidate  in  the 
same  way  that  the  judges  might  manipulate  the  legisla- 
tive grouping  device. 

Q.    Will  you  show  that? 
The  Chairman.     I  will  vote  it. 

The  Witness.    You  have  to  let  me  fix  it  so  you  can  vote 
it.    Now,  you  can  go  ahead. 
The  Chairman.     All  right. 
The  Witness.     The  legislative  restricting  device  is  a 


The  Cumulative  Voting  Attachment.  323 

special  attachment  which  is  applied  to  the  machine  at 
any  point,  so  that  the  ticket  can  be  arranged  anywhere. 
This  is  the  device  (indicating)  and  prevents  voting  in 
one  group  when  you  have  started  to  vote  in  another. 
When  the  voting  has  been  done  by  the  individual  keys, 
1385  this  bar  is  raised  up ;  when  this  is  raised  it  prevents  this 
from  going  up.  When  the  voting  is  started  in  the  1^ 
votes  then  this  part  of  the  machine  is  used ;  when  this  is 
raised  up,  this  part  cannot  be  used. 

Mr.  Deneex.  When  you  say  "this  part,"  describe  it, 
so  the  reporters  will  get  it,  and  so  the  man  who  reads  it 
will  understand  it. 

The  Witness.     I  was  showing  it  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Deneen.     Describe  the  parts. 

The  Witness.  This  device  is  arranged  in  three  sec- 
tions. This  is  one  section  of  three  votes  each;  here  is 
another  section  of  three  votes  each;  here  is  another  sec- 
tion of  three  votes  each ;  and  here  is  another  one  of  three. 

Senator  Landee.     Four  groups? 

The  Witness.  Four  groups,  of  three  votes  each.  It 
may  be  set  that  all  can  be  used ;  as  it  is  now  set,  only  two 
of  three  vote  groups  are  used;  and  two  of  these  groups 
are  used  only,  this  part  is  thrown  out  of  action  and  this 
section  is  thrown  out  of  action.  When  that  is  on  the  ma- 
chine, that  restricts  the  voting  to  one  of  those  two 
groups,  whichever  you  start  in  you  have  to  continue  in; 
but  the  grouping  is  done  on  the  back  of  the  machine  in  the 
regular  way  by  these  grouping  pins  that  were  spoken  of 
yesterday.  The  group  for  1^  votes  is  arranged  by  pulling 
out  one  pin  between  the  grouping  pins  for  that  particular 
group,  which  in  this  case  is  22  and  23.  The  li  votes  as 
you  will  find  on  the  face  of  the  machine,  is  a  group  in 
those  two  columns.  The  individual  legislative  tickets  are 
in  the  group  on  the  face  of  the  machine  from  16  to  21, 
,1386  and  those  pins  are  all  removed  so  that  it  makes  it  possi- 
ble to  vote  anywhere,  in  that  group,  but  to  restrict  that  to 
three  votes  only,  there  are  three  compensators  put  in.  I 
will  remove  one;  they  are  not  pins;  those  are  the  pins; 
this  is  a  compensator;  we  have  taken  the  pin  out  so  the 
position  for  those  straps  is  not  restricted  lengthwise  but 
we  must  restrict  a  number  of  wedges ;  these  are  brought 
up;  this  is  done  by  putting  in  these  compensators.  It 
prevents  more  than  the  right  number  being  used,  but  does 
not  restrict  the  position  in  which  those  may  be  moved. 


324  Fraudulent  Setting  of  Attachment. 

For  each  pin  if  we  put  in  one  of  these  compensators 
where  the  pin  was  removed,  then  you  could  not  vote  at  all, 
but  here  we  have  taken  out  five  pins,  making  a  group  of 
six;  then  put  in  three  compensators  which  restricts  that 
to  only  three  votes ;  now,  if  the  custodian  leaves  out  one 
of  these  you  can  vote  four  votes. 

Mr.  McEwEN.     It  depends  on  the  setting! 

The  Witness.     Yes. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Is  the  voter  aware  of  the  number  of 
votes  he  has  voted? 

The  Witness.  He  is.  He  has  pulled  down  a  certain 
number  of  keys.  If  I  pull  out  another  one,  you  can  vote 
five;  if  I  pull  out  the  other,  you  can  vote  six.  If  the 
custodian  should  leave  the  machine  set  in  that  way,  any 
voter  could  vote  six  legislative  votes. 

1387  Senator  Babr.    Q.     For  one  man? 

The  Witness.  No;  he  could  vote  three  for  each  of  two 
men.  If  he  votes  in  the  li  group,  he  can  vote  only  two, 
because  that  is  in  a  group  by  itself.  You  can  try  that 
on  the  machine. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Suppose  you  experiment  on  the  machine 
to  see  how  it  works. 

The  Witness.  It  is  now  set  for  four  votes.  Now  I 
am  restricted  to  those  four  in  that  group.  I  can  vote  those 
four  for  this  man  or  I  can  vote  for  another  man.  I  can 
vote  these  four  only,  but  I  can't  votes  these  two.  When 
the  device  is  properly  set  then  you  can  only  vote  three. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  put  that  device  on  now  as 
you  have  it  set  there? 

The  Witness.     Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Leave  it  just  as  it  is  in  regard  to  the 
voting.     (Whereupon  the  wdtness  put  the  device  on.) 

The  Witness.  Now,  that  is  set  to  restrict  to  one  group 
only,  but  I  can  vote — 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  device  on  now?  Show  us  how 
you  can  vote,  how  many  you  can  vote. 

The  Witness.  I  can  vote  four ;  if  I  vote  in  this  group 
it  restricts  me  entirely  from  this,  as  it  should  do ;  so,  with 
that  device  as  arranged  now,  if  you  vote  the  regular  ticket, 
it  is  entirely  correct. 

1388  The  Chairman.     A  straight  ticket,  you  mean? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  if  you  vote  1^  votes  for  each  of 
two  men  on  the  regular  ticket  in  the  regular  way,  but  if 
I  choose  to  vote  individually,  I  can  vote  four  votes. 


Could  Not  Be  Detected  by  Judges.  325 

Senator  Baeb.  Can  they  detect  this  by  inspection  in 
the  morning! 

The  Witness.  No,  they  do  not  vote;  they  can't  do  it; 
the  machine  is  locked;  if  they  do,  they  register  a  vote. 

Mr.  Deneen.     a  little  louder,  Senator,  please. 

Senator  Bare.  I  am  inquiring  if  the  judges  in  the 
morning  could  detect  this  change,  and  the  professor  says 
it  can't  be  done. 

1388  Q.  They  are  not  allowed  to  do  it?  A.  No,  as  the 
machine  is  arranged,  they  would  not  detect  it.  By  taking 
out  another  one  of  those  compensators,  I  can  vote  for 
five. 

The  Chaibman.  To  show  that,  demonstrate  it.  You 
have  your  slugs  in  there,  or  your  compensators! 

The  Witness.  There  are  two  in  there;  I  have  taken 
out  one. 

The  Chairmain  (voting  the  machine).  Do  you  get  them 
on  16,  17, 18  and  19  A,  Senator?    Have  you  got  them! 

The  Witness.    Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Four  votes  cast  for  representative, 
then! 

Senator  Barb.    Try  it  again. 

The  Chairman.    I  will  cast  it  now  on  B — 

Senator  Barb.    Give  the  same  one. 

The  Chairman.     On  A  16,  17,  18  and  19.     (Voting  on 

1389  the  machine).     Did  they  register! 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  Would  you  like  to  have  me 
take  out  the  rest  of  them ! 

Mr.  Deneen.    Will  you  arrange  it  for  six  votes ! 

The  Chairman.    Now,  if  you  want  to  vote  three  votes 

1390  for  ^FcNichols  and  three  votes  for  Marcy,  here  are  16, 
17,  18,  19,  20  and  21  (indicating  on  machine).  Open  that 
back.    Now,  get  the  numbers  in  "A." 

A.     The  numbers  in  "A"! 

Q.  Yes.  Get  17,  16,  18,  19,  20  and  21.  That  is  three 
votes  for  McNichols  and  three  votes  for  Marcv,  as  you 
read?    A.    Yes. 

Q.    Voted?    A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  will  ask  you.  Professor,  to  demonstrate 
on  the  machine  how  you  can  vote  a  straight  party  ticket 
and  also  an  additional  vote  for  another  man  on  the 
ticket. 

A.    Yes,  sir;  just  let  me  adjust  the  machine. 


326  Unlawful  Vote  Is  Cast  on  Machine. 

Senator  Canaday.  What  officers  are  you  going  to  set 
it  at? 

The  Chairman.  Set  it  in  column  25,  Recorder  of 
I^eeds 

A.    What  is  that? 

The  Chairman.  Make  it  in  column  25,  Recorder  of 
Deeds. 

A.    Column  25? 

Q.  In  column  25,  yes.  A.  All  right.  Now  see  if  it 
registers  hack  there.  I  strike  25-B.  Now,  I  am  voting 
the  straight  ticket.  Now  I  am  going  to  vote  the  straight 
Democratic  ticket  for  Mr.  Joseph  Blank,  running  on  the 
same  ticket  for  the  office  of  Recorder  of  Deeds  in  column 
25.    Are  you  ready? 

Q.  Yes.  The  vote  registers  for  Mr.  Blank,  25-B.  A. 
25-B? 

Q.    Yes,  and  the  straight  Democratic  ticket  is  voted 
also. 
1391    A  Bystander,    Take  some  other  ticket.    Take  the  Pro- 
gressive ticket. 

A.     Oh,  you  want  some  Progressive  votes. 

The  Bystander.    Yes. 

A.    All  right. 

The  Bystander.    Tell  us  who  you  are  going  to  vote  for. 

A.  I  wall  take  the  Progressive,  "  F" ;  have  you  got  it, 
in  column  25? 

The  Chairman.    Yes. 

A.  Now  I  have  got  that  down;  then  we  will  vote  for 
Walter  Willis,  25-F,  for-Rieoorder  of  Deeds. 

A.  All  right.  Now  have  you  got  your  eye  on  both  of 
them? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  it  doesn't  count  a  vote.  Walter 
Willis  then  got  a  straight  vote  for  his  party  and  got  an 
individual  vote  counted,  did  he? 

A.    Yes. 

The  Chairman.    Proceed  with  the  examination  Counsel. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Professor  DePuy,  what  may  a  cus- 
todian do  regarding  the  primary  lever  and  its  manipula- 
tion of  the  mechanism  through  that?  A.  The  custodian 
may  leave  the  primary  lever  in  an  unrestricted  position, 
thus  permitting  him  to  manipulate  this  device.  Will  you 
demonstrate  your  answer  on  the  machine? 

A.    Yes,  sir ;  the  primary  device  is  not  set.    I  will  set  it. 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  327 

Mr.  Denebn.  The  committee  will  kindly  step  forward 
while  this  demonstration  is  taking  place. 

The  Chairman.  Give  the  custodian's  orders,  how  he 
acts  on  this  machine  at  the  primary,  so  the  committee 
will  see  how  it  is  done. 

1392  A.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  you  set  the  pointer  on  the 
ticket. 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  you  demonstrate  it  under  the 
most  favorable  circumstances. 

A.    All  right.    And  allow  a  party  for  each  line. 

Kepresentative  Kasserman.    It  is  easy  to  demonstrate ! 

A.    Yes. 

The  Chairman.    Just  as  many  as  there  are  there. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Professor  DePuy,  will  you  state 
what  you  have  done  so  that  the  Commissioners  may  get 
it? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  Wait  until  he  fixes  it, 
then  it  may  be  done. 

Mr.  Deneen.  All  right,  then  you  need  not  take  it  until 
he  does  that. 

A.    Now,  this  lever  is  now  set  at  zero  point. 

The  Chairman.    What  does  that  mean! 

A.  The  primary  lever.  That  means  that  any  of  these 
bars  can  be  used;  that  is,  the  machine  is  now  just  the 
same  as  it  is  at  an  ordinary  election.  It  does  not  affect 
this  at  all  (indicating).  If  I  pull  this  handle,  however, 
one  of  them,  this  slot  which  I  have  pulled  off  allows  this 
bar  only  to  move  in  the  top  of  the  space. 

Q.  What  is  the  Republican  party  line?  "A"?  A. 
On  the  face  of  the  machine,  "A."  The  *'B"  key  does  not 
move  in  because  this  (indicating)  passes  in  behind,  this 
lug  (indicating). 

The  Chairman.    Will  you  indicate  how  that  is  done? 

A.     The   lug  on  the   end  in  the  party  bar  projects 

1393  through  the  face  of  the  machine;  that  lug  at  the  end  is 
restricted  by  means  of  a  little  segment  on  the  primary 
device  which  turns  around,  can  be  turned  out  of  the  way. 

Senator  Canaday.  Suppose  I  am  voting  and  telling 
you  I  want  to  vote  the  Republican  ticket — 

A.    Yes— 

Q.  — now,  when  you  set  it  at  one  after  I  go  back  into 
the  booth,  can  you  set  it  at  zero?  A.  No,  after  you  go 
into  the  booth  I  cannot  move  this,  but  before  you  get  into 
the  booth  I  can. 


328        Various  Operations  of  Machine  Demonstrated. 

Q.  But  after  I  go  into  the  booth  you  cannot  move  it? 
A.  No,  no;  for  instance,  you  told  me  I  vote  the  Repub- 
lican primary  ticket. 

Q.  Now,  if  you  set  that  at  one  and  I  go  in  here  and 
vote,  and  I  have  not  touched  the  machine,  could  you  move 
that  back  to  zero !    A.    Yes,  before  you  got  in  there. 

Q.    Before  I  got  in  there?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Now,  I  am  asking  you  about  this.  I  now  want  to 
vote  the  Republican  ticket.  Just  a  moment;  Mr.  Jayne, 
will  you  please  step  in  here!  You  see  I  want  to  vote  a 
Republican  ticket.    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    I  want  to  set  it  to  this  point  (indicating). 

Representative  Jayne.  .  He  wants  to  vote  the  Repub- 
lican ticket;  that  is  what  he  is  asking  you  about. 

The  Chairman.    Is  that  demonstrated? 

Representative  Jayne,    Yes,  I  understood  it. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Canaday  now  asked  him  a 
question.  Set  it  at  Recorder  of  Deeds,  "C";  you  see  him 
set  it;  now  I  want  to  vote  the  Democratic  ticket.  Now 
eome  on,  go  and  turn  any  of  the  keys  down  indiscrimi- 
nately now.    You  are  supposed  to  be  limited. 

According  to  previous  testimony  of  the  witness,  if  the 
party  lever  is  set  at  zero  at  a  primary  election,  the  voter 
can  vote  anywhere  on  the  face  of  the  machine  and  is  not 
restricted  to  any  one  party,  and  to  prevent  the  lever  be- 
ing set  there  a  hook  inside  the  machine  should  be  fixed  at 
a  certain  position. 

1395  "A.  A  little  hook  on  the  inside  of  the  machine  can  be 
and  should  be  set  by  the  custodian  so  that  this  key  might 
not  be  returned  to  zero." 

But  the  judge  of  election  can  also  set  this  hook  so  as 
to  permit  the  party  lever  to  be  set  at  zero.  To  do  this 
the  judge  of  elections  would  have  to  break  a  seal. 

1396  The  seals  are  not  identified  or  numbered.  The  seal  is 
a  piece  of  wire  with  a  piece  of  lead  fastened  to  it. 

1397  The  number  of  the  Empire  machine  in  the  room  here 
is  4838. 

1398  The  number  of  the  machine  examined  by  Mr.  DePuy, 
Mr.  Leutw^eiler  and  Mr.  Olson  at  the  Hotel  La  Salle  is 
4522 ;  the  latter  machine  was  furnished  to  the  experts  by 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners. 

The  w-itness  has  been  experimenting  on  the  latter  ma- 
chine, and  in  witness'  opinion  neither  one  of  the  ma- 


Defective  Voting  on  Machine.  329 

chines  was  set  properly  to  give  a  true  record  of  the 
votes  cast  at  the  election  of  November,  1912. 

"Q.  Wherein  were  they  at  fault!  You  read  it  and 
then  demonstrate  it.  A.  *In  the  party  row  "0"  and 
candidates'  column  22,  the  name  of  the  candidate  for 
Kepresentative  was  not  repeated,  thus  depriving  that 
particular  candidate  of  one  and  a  half  votes  every  time 
that  key  22-C  was  used,  which  naturally  would  happen  if 
a  split  ticket  were  voted  in  the  regular  way.' 

"Q.  Were  there  any  other  omissions?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
the  same  conditions  as  mentioned  before  existed  on  party 
rows  'D'  and  'F'  in  column  22. 

"Q.  Will  you  demonstrate  on  the  machine  now  the 
statement  made  in  tlie  party  row  'C  and  candidates' 
column  221  A.  Yes,  sir.  Party  row  'C  We  have  one 
name  here  in  the  1^  column,  Representative  of  the  Sec- 
ond District.  That  key  would  be  depressed  to  vote  for 
him  in  the  regular  way.  If,  however,  it  was  done  by  vot- 
ing according  to  instructions,  on  a  split  ticket,  that  would 
be  by  pulling  all  the  keys  down.  In  doing  that  I  would 
pull  on  that  key  (indicating)  and  also  the  next  one,  22-C. 

' '  Senator  Babe.  They  were  not  voting  for  anybody ! 
1399  "A.  There  is  no  name  there.  I  give  this  vote  to  the 
man  in  the  1|  column.  I  give  this  vote  to  him  because 
he  is  not  designated  there,  as  I  understand  the  machine. 
It  will  not  vote  for  him  unless  his  name  appeared  on  the 
machine.  I  can  do  it  by  pulling  down  the  three  keys, 
but  I  do  not  do  it  in  the  regular  way  of  voting.  The 
regular  way  of  voting  is  by  pulling  on  this  key  (indi- 
cating). 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    According  to  your  instructions? 

"A.     According  to   the   instructions    of  the   Election 
Board." 
1401    "Mr.  McEwEN.    You  find  more  fault  with  the  instruc- 
tions than  with  the  machine? 

"Mr.  DstNEEN.    No,  the  machine  is  involved. 

"The  Witness.  No,  the  machine  is  involved.  You 
see,  the  ticket  is  not  properly  printed." 

In  the  space  provided  for  the  names  of  candidates  for 
the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  sample  ballot  fixed 
to  the  voting  machine,  where  the  machine  provides  for 
two  votings  of  14  votes  each,  the  name  of  the  candidate 
appears  but  once  and  below  but  one  of  1\  vote  keys.  The 
space  below  the  other  l|-vote  key  being  blank. 


330  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

The  witness  explains  that  a  voter  in  voting  these  two 
keys  for  the  purpose  of  voting  two  votes,  IJ  each,  or  3 
votes  for  the  candidate  for  the  House  of  Eiepresentatives, 
would,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  only  vote  1^  votes  for  him,  as 
the  1^  vote  on  the  blank  key  would  not  be  counted. 

"Senator  Canaday.  I  suppose  that  is  the  fault  of  the 
Election  Commissioners  who  had  the  ballots  printed? 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Yes. 

"The  Witness.  Complicating  matters  so  that  the  will 
of  the  voter  is  not  properly  registered;  that  is  the  diffi- 
culty with  this  machine  here,  as  well  as  in  many  other 
places. ' ' 

The  witness  shows  that  all  the  columns  for  candidates 
for  Representative  are  in  the  same  condition  as  above 
noted. 

1402  "Senator  Canaday.  As  I  understand  it,  Professor,  you 
are  now  demonstrating  the  machine  as  it  would  be  used 
on  the  general  election? 

"A.    Yes,  sir. 

"The  Chaikman.  This  machine  was  turned  over  to  the 
Committee  as  it  was  when  used  in  the  demonstration  for 
the  last  general  election." 

Senator  Canaday  raises  the  question  whether  in  voting 
two  keys  for  a  Representative,  one  of  which  only  bore 
his  name,  the  other  being  blank,  he  would  not  receive 
three  votes. 

1403  Operating  the  blank  key  would  set  a  counter  working. 
The  Chairman  makes  the  point  that  the  voter  cannot 

indicate  that  he  wants  to  give  a  Representative  two  votes 
of  li  each  on  this  machine. 

1404  The  voter  can  vote  three  votes  on  the  1^-vote  keys  by 
voting  for  two  different  men,  but  cannot  vote  3  votes  for 
one  man  on  such  key. 

"Q.  Now,  you  pull  down  22-F  over  the  blank  space; 
then  what  does  it  do?  A.  It  registers  on  the  counter, 
but  there  is  no  identification  mark." 

If  the  vote  on  the  blank  space  is  counted,  the  candidate, 
of  course,  would  receive  more  than  li  votes. 

1405  "Q.  Directing  your  attention  to  the  movements  of 
these  keys,  I  would  like  to  have  you  state  whether  or  not 
a  vote  can  be  partially  voted  and  not  register  the  vote 
and  to  what  extent  V 

Witness  states  the  key  must  be  moved  down  to  a  cer- 


Key  Duplication.  331 

tain  point.    If  the  key  is  moved  down  nine  thirty-seconds 
of  an  inch,  it  does  not  register  the  vote, 

1406  "Q.  Now,  will  you  give  us  the  measurements  that  you 
made  in  measuring  this  machine  which  has  been  identi- 
fied as  No.  4522?    What  are  the  measurements  which  you 

1407  took  in  reference  to  this  'F'  key!  A.  The  key  when 
pulled  down  nine  thirty-seconds  will  not  release  the  vot- 
ing lever ;  if  it  is  pulled  down  eleven  thirty-seconds  it  will 
release  the  voting  lever." 

Witness  describes  how  he  got  an  impression  of  the  two 
keys  on  the  machine  for  the  purpose  of  making  duplicate 
keys. 

"A.  The  flat  key,  perfectly  flat,  this  key  was  handed 
to  me  and  I  went  through  this  process.  I  moistened  the 
blotting  paper  and  squeezed  this  key  into  the  blotting 
paper  with  my  fingers.  I  afterwards  took  a  blank  and 
filed  it  to  correspond  with  the  impression  on  the  blot- 
ting paper." 

1411  The  process  was  simple  and  took  20  minutes. 

The  witness  had  the  two  keys  in  his  hands  about  five 
minutes  and  made  the  blotting  paper  impression  and  car- 
ried it  home  and  made  the  key.  It  is  not  a  difficult  mat- 
ter; the  key  could  be  made  by  any  locksmith  or  mechanic. 

1412  Witness  produces  a  key  which  unlocks  the  counter-con- 
trolling device.  The  key  and  the  lock  are  marked  "zero." 
It  is  a  standard  Yale  lock  key,  what  is  known  as  a  five- 
pin  key. 

Witness  made  a  duplicate  by  placing  in  a  block  a  regu- 
lar Yale  cylinder  which  has  holes  for  the  pins  in  the  cylin- 
der; such  blocks  are  easily  procured  in  Chicago.  It  is  a 
block  belonging  to  a  regular  Yale  lock. 

In  this  block  the  witness  inserted  pins  of  soft  wire. 

The  Yale  key  received  by  the  witness  was  then 
inserted  in  the  block  and  the  ends  of  the  pins  of  soft  wire 
raised  in  the  notches  in  the  face  of  the  key  as  it  stands  in 
the  block.  The  key  is  then  twisted  around  and  the  motion 
presses  the  soft  wire  pins  against  the  shearing  edged  in 
the  block  and  cuts  them  off  the  same  length  as  the  pins 
in  the  lock  to  which  the  key  belongs. 

1413  "These  pins  are  numbered.  I  took  the  key  out  and  put 
it  in  my  pocket,  and  when  I  got  to  the  hotel  last  evening 
after  the  session,  in  20  minutes  I  had  a  key  which,  when 
I  tried  it  in  the  lock  this  morning,  fitted  it. ' ' 

The  device  is  one  in  common  use  by  locksmiths. 


332  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

The  witness  didn't  take  home  the  key  with  him,  only 
the  little  machine  and  the  block. 

1414  Witness  also  made  the  other  key,  the  flat  key,  in  about 
20  minutes.  The  two  keys  in  20  minutes  each.  Witness 
could  have  made  any  number  of  keys  in  short  order. 

Witness  supposes  that  in  counting  the  votes  after  elec- 
tion, the  counters  are  read  by  the  judges  at  the  back  of 
the  machine.  On  the  counters  at  the  back  of  the  machine 
there  are  onh'-  numbers  and  letters;  on  the  front  of  the 
machine  the  numbers,  letters  and  the  name  of  the  candi- 
date. Witness  has  never  seen  judges  record  votes  on  a 
machine. 

1415  Witness  has  seen  a  card  so  devised  as  to  be  put  on 
the  back  of  the  machine  showing  the  names  of  each  can- 
didate. Mr.  Huff  had  shown  it  to  him  and  witness  thinks 
this  would  simplify  the  counting. 

AVitness  thinks  the  three  judges  could  not  see  the  coun- 
ters at  the  same  time,  and  that  it  would  be  difficult  for 
more  than  one  judge  to  see  them  at  one  time. 


VOLUME  XVI. 

Afternoon  Session. 
Friday,  August  1,  1913. 

Clarence  E.  DePuy  resumes  stand : 

1418  Witness  identifies  a  piece  of  wire  as  part  of  a  seal.  It 
is  identified  by  number  and  witness  assumes  from  its 
being  numbered  that  it  is  registered  at  the  Election  Com- 
missioners' office. 

1419  The  guards  at  the  back  of  the  machine  were  small  cir- 
cular pieces  of  lead  with  the  wires  which  wei-e  placed 
on  the  machine  running  through  them  and  squeezed  down 
•upon  them  so  they  couldn't  be  removed  without  cutting 
the  seals.  It  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  substitute  one  seal 
for  another  of  such  seals. 

There  are  several  voting  machines  which  provide  for 
printing  an  impression  of  the  exact  condition  of  each 
counter.  Witness  has  examined  two  such  machines,  the 
International  and  the  Calkins. 


A  Voting  Machine  That  Prints  Own  Record.        333 

1420  In  place  of  wheels,  like  those  on  the  Empire  machine 
counters,  the  International  has  wheels  containing  type 
which  will  print  like  typewriter  print;  when  an  impres- 
sion is  taken,  the  machine  is  turned  bottom  side  up,  in 
which  position  the  counters  are  locked  so  that  the  ma- 
chine cannot  be  voted,  and  an  impression  is  taken  on  a 
paper  ballot  by  running  over  it  with  a  rubber  roller,  such 
as  is  used  in  mounting  blueprints,  or  prints. 

The  machine  just  prints  the  number  which  the  machine 
records  on  the  ballot  directly  below  the  name  of  each 
candidate. 

1421  A  print  is  made  in  the  morning  before  any  votes  are 
cast,  and  on  the  same  ballot  a  print  is  taken  in  the  even- 
ing after  the  election  is  over. 

Several  ballots  are  printed;  one  kept  for  a  certain 
length  of  time  by  the  judges,  another  by  the  Election 
Commissioners,  and  witness  thinks  there  are  three  made, 
at  least;  there  may  be  more. 

This  gives  a  check  on  the  condition  of  the  machine 
as  to  each  candidate.  On  the  Empire  machine  there  is 
no  check  except  the  inspection  of  the  judges.  The  cor- 
nectness  of  the  Empire  machine  depends  upon  the  integ- 
rity of  the  custodian,  also  the  carefulness,  because  it  is 
an  easy  matter  to  overlook. 

1422  Witness  thinks  the  custodian  could  alter  every  ma- 
chine in  the  city  if  he  cared  to  do  so  and  give  a  handicap 
of  any  number  of  votes  he  chose  without  anyone  being 
able  to  detect  it. 

Witness  regards  this  as  a  serious  defect  in  the  Empire 
voting  machine  and  at  the  present  time  a  printing  ma- 
chine is  the  only  way  to  avoid  many  of  these  errors. 

The  restricting  clips  may  be  placed  so  as  to  affect  the 
integrity  of  the  machine,  by  anyone  who  has  the  key  to 
the  lower  rear  door.      The  custodian  could  do  this. 

1423  This  could  be  done  in  five  seconds  and  the  mechanism 
can  be  replaced  after  the  election  in  as  little  time. 

Witness  thinks  the  machine  is  not  convenient  to  handle. 
The  machine  must  be  removed  from  its  box  or  crate  in 
order  to  let  the  custodian  fix  the  counters  and  place  it 
back  again;  it  has  to  be  handled  several  times  at  the 
warehouse  and  several  times,  at  the  polls. 

1424  The  space  assigned  for  writing  the  names  of  presi- 
dential electors  is  IJ  inches  high  and  2\  inches  wide. 
There  are  29  presidential  electors  in  Illinois.      Witness 


334  "Independent  Slides"  Too  Small. 

thinks  the  names  of  these  29  possibly  could  be  written  in 
this  space,  but  it  would  take  more  than  the  allotted  time. 
Witness  thinks  it  would  take  at  least  an  hour  to  write  the 
29  names  in  the  space  provided. 

Pasters  could  possibly  be  applied  if  you  could  find 
pasters  to  suit  the  possible  views  of  every  voter,  but  it 
1425  would  be  too  intricate. 

Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  is  questioned  as  to  whether,  if  the  ratchet  on 
the  left  hand  end  of  the  irregular  (independent)  voting 
roll  is  detached,  he  could,  as  he  had  stated,  move  the  roller 
forward  with  his  moistened  finger.  Witness  answered 
"yes." 

1427  (Witness,  counsel  and  members  of  the  Committee  go 
to  the  machine  and  experiment  is  made  and  witness 
moves  the  roller  with  his  moistened  fingers  a  distance  of 
two  spaces.) 

1428  (On  attempting  to  move  the  paper  to  the  third  space 
the  paper  tore.) 

It  took  more  than  a  minute  to  do  this. 

Witness'  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  in  Chi- 
cago elections  15  or  20  men  are  often  at  the  same  time 
waiting  to  vote  and  asked  if  he  thinks  the  roller  experi- 
ment shows  any  mechanical  objection  to  the  machine. 

Witness  answered:  "I  think  that  ratchet  ought  to  be 
arranged  so  it  could  not  be  done.  It  would  be  a  very 
easy  matter." 

1429  Any  kind  of  ratchet  that  would  be  attached  would  per- 
mit the  roller  to  be  moved.  The  witness  thinks  the  roller 
should  be  made  non-removable. 

Witness  does  not  think  that  this  particular  objection 
is  serious  or  that  the  fraud  would  be  practiced  generally 
at  polling  places.     It  could  be  done  in  isolated  instances. 

1430  In  primary  elections,  the  operation  of  the  paper  roll 
is  different  from  what  it  is  in  elections.  In  primaries  the 
point  perforates  the  roll  with  a  certain  number  of  i>erfo- 
rations  according  to  the  party  ticket  voted.  In  primary 
elections,  if  the  names  were  fraudulently  written  in  the 
paper  roll,  these  perforations  would  not  appear  oppo- 
site to  such  names.      Thus  furnishing  evidence  of  the 

1431  fraud. 

The  party  restricting  device,  when  placed  at  zero, 
permits  the  voter  to  vote  for  candidates  of  any  party. 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  335 

It  should  be  locked  to  lock  out  such  miscellaneous  vot- 
ing. Without  the  zero  setting  a  man  would  not  be  per- 
mitted to  vote  any  ticket  he  chooses  as  he  may  do  in  a 
general  election  and  the  machine  could  not  be  used  at  a 
general  election. 

The  integrity  of  the  lockout  depends  on  the  restrict- 
ing hook  being  set  so  as  to  keep  the  party  lock  out  off 
zero. 

1432  Properly,  the  custodian  has  access  to  the  restricting' 
hook;  properly,  the  judges  do  not  have  access  to  it. 

So  far  as  witness  knows,  all  machines  use  a  lock  to 
prohibit  the  operation  of  portions  of  the  machine  by 
the  judges,  and  does  not  believe  it  will  be  possible  to 
construct  machines  without  locks  for  this  purpose. 

The  Yale  lock  is  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  best  made, 
but  any  lock  witness  knows  of  may  be  tampered  with. 

1433  It  is  not  necessary  even  with  a  Yale  lock  to  have  the 
key  to  open  the  lock.  Witness  does  not  think  that  a 
combination  lock  would  be  satisfactory. 

In  examining  machines  the  witness  had  in  mind  that 
it  must  be  operated  by  men  and  considered  with 
reference  to  the  practical  holding  of  an  election. 

"Q.  At  the  present  time  under  the  ballot  system,  it  is 
necessary  to  have  honesty  of  officials  ?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.    At  some  or  all  points?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  If  everybody  is  dishonest,  the  system  breaks 
down?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  And  it  is  the  effort  to  meet  that  dishonesty  that 
has  led  to  inventors  trying  to  invent  satisfactory  voting 

1434  machines?    A.    Yes,  sir." 

Witness  does  not  know  the  system  that  is  applied  to 
the  present  system  of  printing,  counting,  checking  up,  in- 
spection, and  so  forth,  of  ballots,  but  knows  that  if  this 
breaks  down,  and  the  ballots  get  into  outside  circulation 
they  are  readily  made  the  means  of  fraud. 

1435  Witness  has  never  seen  a  better  than  the  Empire  ma- 
chine. 

The  witness  examined  the  Calkins  machine  in  1910. 
It  was  not  in  a  perfected  state,  but  had  some  good  fea- 
tures. 

The  International  machine  was  examined  but  once  by 
the  witness  and  was  not  approved. 

1436  Witness  does  not  claim  to  be  an  expert  on  voting  ma- 
chines, because  he  does  not  devote  his  time  to  it. 

Witness  expects  to  render  a  bill  for  his  services  in 


336  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

1437  this  investigation.  Witness'  compensation  on  other 
voting  machine  investigations  has  been  $25  per  day. 

AVitness  was  asked  by  Governor  Deneen  to  make  the 
present  investigation. 

1438  The  wires  placed  by  the  witness  on  the  face  of  the  ma- 
chine yesterday  were  intended  to  prevent  the  key  from  be- 
ing pulled  down. 

In  putting  the  wire  on  yesterday,  the  witness  used  a 
screw  driver  and  took  about  ten  minutes ;  has  been  more 
expeditious  on  other  occasions,  but  the  particular  clip  did 
not  want  to  stay  on. 

"Q.  And  after  you  placed  it  in,  perhaps  you  observed 
that  I  readily  pulled  the  key  down  and  it  flew  out!    A. 

1439  I  believe  the  space  was  a  little  different  from  what  it  is 
in  different  places  on  the  machine,  or  else  the  clip  was 
not  just  the  right  shape. ' ' 

On  the  machine  at  the  La  Salle  Hotel  witness  and  the 
other  experts  had  put  in  clips  in  five  seconds  and  have 
not  been  able  to  pull  them  out  by  a  pull  of  the  keys. 

Witness  does  not  think  that  a  voter  who  knew  that 
the  key  should  go  down  would  know  if  it  didn't  that 
there  was  something  wrong  with  the  machine. 

1440  In  many  instances  the  voter  would  object,  no  doubt. 
Witness  thinks  the  voter  absolutely  without  instructions 

would  be  confused  in  attempting  to  vote  on  the  machine 
and  the  same  as  the  Australian  ballot  such  as  used  at  the 
last  primary  election.  The  voter  needs  some  instruc- 
tion in  both  instances. 

1443  Many  voters  would  require  considerable  instruction 
before  they  understand  the  operation  of  the  machine,  more 

1444  instruction  than  to  vote  an  Australian  ballot.  These  dif- 
ficulties are  not  insuperable,  however,  to  Illinois  voters. 

The  witness  favors  the  voting  machine  when  a  satisfac- 
tory one  is  presented.  Such  a  machine  would  have  locks 
and  great  care  should  be  taken  to  prevent  the  use  of  keys 
by  any  unauthorized  persons. 

1445  The  means  of  protecting  the  machine  against  inspec- 
tions were  not  carried  out  as  fully  as  they  might  be  on 
the  Empire  machine.  The  number  of  inspections  should 
be  limited.  Would  have  men  in  charge  of  machines  or 
their  use  watched  by  dissimilar  interests. 

1446  The  rubber  band  is  not  a  very  successful  means  of  fraud 
on  this  machine.  It  appeared  as  early  as  1907  and  was 
one  of  the  objections  to  the  United  States  Standard 
machine,  which  had  a  party  lever  and  a  key  to  which  a 


Form  of  Empire  Machine  Aids  Frauds.  337 

rubber  band  could  be  attached.  Witness  has  not  exam- 
ined this  with  reference  to  the  use  of  rubber 
bands,  but  thinks  the  shape  of  the  key  might  be  improved. 

1447  Witness  has  seen  machines  where  the  rubber  band  was 
less  effective  than  on  the  Empire  machine,  where  the  rub- 
ber band  could  not  be  used  at  all.  Witness  thinks  this 
Avas  true  of  the  old  Columbia. 

Witness  does  not  think  that  the  rubber  band  fraud 
was  one  of  the  reasons  for  abolishing  the  party  lever. 

1448  Witness  thinks  the  key  could  be  so  shaped  that  a  rub- 
ber band  would  not  stay  on. 

The  present  machine  has  some  features  resembling 
those  of  the  old  Columbia,  such  as  the  legislative  restrict- 
ing device. 

It  may  be  possible  that  shaping  the  key  to  prevent 
the  rubber  band  fraud  would  make  it  more  diflScult  for 
the  voter  to  use  the  key.  Witness  does  not  place  much 
weight  on  the  rubber  band  objection. 

1449  Witness  thinks  the  wire  clip  might  cause  a  good  deal 
of  trouble;  if  taken  off  others  can  be  put  on.  The  ma- 
chine might  be  disabled  in  many  ways  but  not  so  easily 
disabled  as  ballots  in  a  ballot  box  could  be  destroyed. 

1450  The  witness  is  asked  whether  the  keys  could  be  made 
in  such  shape  as  to  prevent  the  wedging  of  wire  clips  and 
so  forth. 

"A.  "VMiy,  I  think  that  the  form  of  the  face  of  that 
machine  might  be  improved.  The  trouble  there  is  that 
the  grooves  in  which  the  ticket  is  held  on  the  machine 
form  an  excellent  place  for  these  restricting  pins  to  get 
a  foothold."  _ 

1451  AVitness  thinks  the  International  machine  was  not  sub- 
ject to  this  defect.  The  International  had  a  sliding  key, 
but  the  opening  in  the  face  of  the  machine  was  covered 
completely  by  the  key  and  witness  does  not  think  any- 
thing could  be  slipped  under  it. 

When  the  voting  machine  comes  to  the  polling  place, 
the  counters  are  supposed  to  be  set  at  zero  and  that  they 
cannot  be  moved  except  through  the  regular  voting 
mechanism. 

1452  In  order  to  move  the  counters,  the  front  of  the  machine 
must  be  locked,  the  middle  rear  door  opened,  and  the 
counter  locks  unlocked  to  release  the  counters. 

This  look  can  be  opened  without  a  key  but  an  impres- 
sion to  make  a  false  key  cannot  be  made  without  the 
key. 


338  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

The  plate  over  the  lock  that  locks  the  counters  has  an 
ordinary  lead  seal  on  it. 

1453  That  might  have,  but  these  have  not  the  identifying 
mark  registered  in  the  Election  Commissioners  office. 

If  the  judges  of  the  election  move  the  protective  lock 
that  locks  the  counters,  the  protective  counter  moves  up 
one  count ;  the  protective  counter  cannot  be  disconnected 
without  breaking  the  seals;  the  public  counter  can  be. 

1454  ' '  Q.  From  a  practical  standpoint,  do  you  consider  that 
a  possibility  of  the  judges  getting  hold  of  the  custodian's 
key,  opening  all  the  doors,  unlocking  the  protective 
counter,  leaving  the  record  on  the  protective  counter,  of 
having  unlocked  the  counters  with  the  responsibility  for 
that  opening  of  the  lock  on  the  protective  counter ;  do  you 
consider  practically  that  possibility  so  great  that  it  ought 
to  reject  this  machine?  A.  Possibly  not,  but  I  think  in 
some  cases  it  might  be  done." 

Any  mechanism  devised  by  man  may  be  tampered  with 
and  improvements  in  voting  machines  may  go  on  for  50 
years  to  come. 

The  restricting  and  grouping  devices  used  on  the  Em- 
pire machine  are  in  general  use  in  practically  all  voting 
machines. 

1455  The  device  for  keeping  in  the  restricting  pins  on  the 
Empire  machine  is  a  practical  one  "if  the  pins  are  not 
bent,  but  they  can  be  easily  bent." 

Ordinarily,  the  pins,  once  inserted,  would  not  be  pulled 
out ;  the  device  might  be  improved. 

1456  Witness  would  not  reject  the  machine  solely  on  this 
account.  Witness  is  asked  whether  machine  will  prop- 
erly operate  in  group  voting  if  the  pins  are  properly 
set.    He  answers:     "It  may  be  set  wrong." 

The  purpose  of  the  restricting  clip  is  to  prevent  vot- 
ing on  the  split  ticket  after  the  straight  ticket  has  been 
voted. 

Eestricting  clip  locks  out  each  individual  row  of  candi- 
dates. "If  it  is  set  wrong  the  voter  may  vote  a  straight 
ticket  and  also  vote  for  indi^ddual  candidates." 

1457  The  custodian  has  charge  of  the  compartment  contain- 
ing the  restricting  clips.  The  clips  are  numbered  to 
correspond  with  the  number  of  the  key  on  the  face  of 
the  machine. 

Witness  does  not  know  of  any  attempt  to  write  29  names 
of  presidential  electors.  Does  not  think  that  would  be 
a  common  case. 


A  Message  From  A.  M.  Lawrence.  339 

Witness  has  not  read  the  law  which  substantially  abol- 
ishes presidential  electors  so  far  as  this  machine  is  con- 
cerned. 

1458  Witness  has  been  a  republican,  until  last  fall,  when  he 
voted  the  progressive  ticket,  mostly. 

"Mr.  Deneen.     Will  the  Commission  excuse  me  a  mo- 
ment?   A  gentleman  wishes  to  speak  to  me. 
Mr.  McEwEN.     Yes,  but  we  want  to  hear  it  first. 

1459  The  Chairman.  Mr.  Keehn,  w^ho  is  attorney  for  An- 
drew M.  Lawrence,  has  presented  a  message  to  the  Com- 
mittee and  to  the  attorney  for  the  Committee,  that  Mr. 
Lawrence,  if  he  is  wanted  as  a  witness  before  this  Com- 
mission would  have  to  be  available  between  now  and  Mon- 
day next,  according  to  plans  made  by  Mr.  Lawrence.  It 
seems  that  he  is  afficted  with  hayfever  and  it  is  customary 
for  him  to  be  gone  this  time  of  the  year,  until  October. 
At  the  present  time  the  Committee  is  unable  to  inform 
Mr.  Keehn  whether  Mr.  Lawrence  will  be  wanted  to-day 
or  at  any  other  time.  We  cannot  tell  whether  he  will  be 
wanted  now,  next  week,  or  the  week  after  next,  or  the 
week  after  that,  and  the  Commission  is  not  in  a  position 
to  send  a  message  saying  that  he  is  wanted  or  is  not 
wanted,  and  they  have  no  reason  to  believe  now  that 
they  really  want  him  as  a  witness  at  any  time. 

Mr.  KJEEHN.  I  will  say  that  he  will  remain  here  if  the 
Commission  indicates  that  it  would  like  to  have  him  re- 
main until  the  latter  part  of  the  week,  but  to  do  that  he 
will  have  to  change  his  plans,  or  he  will  return,  as  is 
customary  for  him,  next  October,  about  the  first  of  next 
October. 

The  Chaibman.    There  is  nothing  within  the  knowleflge 

1459  of  the  committee  at  this  time,  Mr.  Keehn,  that  will 
justify  it  in  calling  Mr.  Lawrence  as  a  witness  at  this  mo- 
ment. 

Mr.  Keehn.    I  thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  the  commission's  position  is 
clear,  and  possibly  Mr.  Lawrence 's  too.  We  are  not  ready 
to  say  whether  we  want  to  subpoena  Mr.  Lawrence  or  not ; 
he  simply  notified  us  that  he  wants  to  go  away. 

1460  Mr.  McEwEN.  I  assume  this  commission  expects  to 
be  in  existence  after  October  Istf 

The  Chairman.  The  Commissioners  expect  to  run  as 
long  as  they  have  anything  to  do.  Judge. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Well,  they  won't  go  out  of  existence  un- 
less they  have  nothing  to  do. 


340  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  hope  not,  unless  they  die  off 
one  at  a  time. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Well,  the  workings  of  the  Lord  are  past 
finding  out,  I  do  not  know  what  he  will  do  about  that. 

Mr.  Mitchell.    That  will  be  entered — 

The  Chaibman.  Are  you  addressing  the  chair,  Mr. 
Mitchell? 

Mr.  Mitchell.'  Yes,  I  am  addressing  the  chair.  That 
will  he  entered  of  record ;  that  up  to  the  present  time  the 
Commission  sees  no  reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Lawrence 
will  be  called  or  requested  to  be  here  as  a  witness. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  the  attorney  for  the  commis- 
sion, Mr.  Mitchell? 

Mr.  Mitchell.    Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  it  may  be  entered  what  he 
stated. 

Mr.  Mitchell.    I  think  it  ought  to  go  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Yes,  I  think  what  Mr.  Mitchell  said 
should  go  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.    Also. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  go  on  with  the  examination 
of  the  witness.    I  think  that  is  disposed  of. 

1462  Part  of  the  material  and  construction  of  the  present 
Empire  is  the  same  one  examined  by  witness  in  1909. 

1462-3  "Q.  Let  me  read  from  the  report  which  you  signed  in 
1909,  in  which  you  say,  under  the  head  of  Empire  Machine 
Construction:  'The  material,  workmanship  and  general 
design  are  very  satisfactory,  the  working  parts,  so  far 
as  I  have  been  able  to  get  at  them,  for  examination,  are 
made  of  steel,  galvanized  or  coppered,  generally;  bronze, 
brass,  aluminum  or  white  metal  compositions,  and  I  think 
there  would  be  but  little  tendency  to  rusting.  The  foot 
bars  are  plain  steel,  and  they  should  be  galvanized  or 
made  of  brass ;  the  workmanship  is  excellent  and  the  parts 
fit  well  together  so  that  for  the  most  part  the  action  is 
positive  and  very  reliable.'  Have  you  had  any  occasion 
to  change  your  views? 

"A.  In  a  few  respects;  as  I  said  yesterday,  I  have  ob- 
served some  indications  of  rusting." 

1463  Witness  observed  rust  on  the  frame  of  the  machine  at 
the  Hotel  La  Salle  and  thinks  later  there  may  be  develop- 
ments of  rust  on  the  working  parts. 

1464  The  spot  of  rust  is  from  3  to  4  inches  long  and  pos- 


Witness  Never  Saw  Feasible  Voting  Machine.        341 

sibly  3/16ths  of  an  inch  wide  and  is  right  on  one  corner 
of  the  bar  containing  the  restricting  pins.  Thinks  that 
the  preserving  coating  has  been  knocked  off  from  some 
cause  or  other. 
1465  It  is  a  difficult  thing  to  keep  steel  from  rusting  under 
certain  conditions. 

"Q.  Have  you  any  criticism  to  pass  now  upon  the  con- 
struction, of  the  materials,  woi-kmanship,  and  general 
design  of  that  machine?  A.  Yes,  the  general  design  I 
think  is  not,  as  I  have  thought  of  the  subject  of  voting 
machines,  I  do  not  believe  that  a  machine  of  this  type, 
general  design,  general  arrangement  of  the  frame,  would 
ever  be  adaptable  to  the  needs  of  Chicago. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  machine  that  has?  A.  No, 
sir. 

1467  Q.  Have  you  a  picture  of  a  machine  in  your  mind  that 
has?    A.    No,  sir,  I  think  of— 

Q.    Do  you  know  a  better  design  than  this — 

Mr.  Deneen.  He  has  not  answered,  Judge ;  let  him  an- 
swer. 

A.  1  think,  however,  the  satisfactory  machine,  when  it 
is  found,  will  be  something  entirely  different;  I  don't  be- 
lieve that  this  type  of  machine  will  ever  be  satisfactory. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  But  you  are  willing  to  go  on  record 
that  this  is  the  best  machine  you  ever  have  seen? 

A.    Of  this  type. 

Q.    Ofanyt^pe?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Why  did  you  qualify  it  before?  A.  Well,  I  don't 
like  the  type. 

Q.  Do  you  like  any  other  type  better?  A.  I  don't — 
I  have  never  seen  a  machine  that  I  would  consider  a 
feasible  machine. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  mean  by  saying  that  the  general 
design  was  very  satisfactory^?  A.  Well,  I  think  in  writ- 
ing that  report  that  I  had  in  mind  the  mechanical  design, 
the  mechanism  of  the  machine,  and  that  is  satisfactory, 
the  mechanical  workmanship  of  the  machine,  the  design 
of  its  parts,  to  work  with  the  other  is  excellent. 

Q.  You  cannot  see  any  improvement  on  it?  A.  No 
criticism  at  all  to  make  on  that  part  of  the  machine. 

1468  Q.  On  the  subject  of  the  counters,  you  say  that  the 
counters — I  am  reading  from  the  same  report  of  1909. 
A.    Yes. 


342        Witness'  Former  Report  on  Empire  Machine. 

Q.  The  counters  and  operating  mechanism  you  con- 
sider very  positive  and  durable?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  The  parts  of  the  counters  proper  are  compara- 
tively long,  and  therefore  not  so  liable  to  be  broken?  A. 
That  word  "long"  should  be  "large"  that  was  a  mis- 
print. 

Q.    Should  be  large?    A.    Yes,  comparatively  large. 

Q.  Well,  the  parts  of  the  counters  proper  are  coni- 
paratively  large,  and  therefore  not  so  liable  to  be  broken, 
as  those  made  with  small  delicate  parts  ?  A.    Yes. 

Q.  ' '  The  counters  and  operating  mechanism  I  consid- 
ered very  positive  and  durable.  The  parts  of  the  coun- 
ters proper  are  comparatively  large,  and  are  therefore 
not  so  liable  to  be  broken  as  those  that  are  made  with 
small  and  delicate  parts.  The  turning  down  of  the  vot- 
ing key  moves  the  operating  mechanism  in  such  a 
manner  that  the  counter  cannot  fail  to  register,  and  un- 
less the  key  has  been  turned  down  the  counter  cannot 
move.  The  counters  are  locked  at  all  times  and  can  only 
be  moved  by  the  operation  of  the  machine  after  the  keys 
have  been  turned  down  by  the  voter,  or  when  the  operat- 
ing mechanism  is  dropped  below  its  normal  position  by 
turning  up  two  handles  inside  the  lower  rear  door  when 
the  operating  handle  is  locked,  as  is  necessary  when  set- 
ting the  counters  to  zero. ' '  A.  That  refers  to  a  different 
method  of  operating  counters  than  we  have  on  this  ma- 
chine, the  counter,  however,  is  the  same,  but  the  manipu- 
1469  lation — the  counter  is  different  but  the  manipulation  is 
the  same,  I  mean. 

Q.  If  this  manipulation  is  made  of  the  counters,  the 
counters  can  be  turned  in  either  direction  to  zero?  This 
machine  has  a  locking  device?  A.  Yes,  I  think  there  was 
simply  a  pair  of  rods  at  each  end,  one  at  each  end  of  the 
machine  which  were  reached  from  the  custodian's  door. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  this  device  in  this  machine  better 
than  the  old  device?    A.    Yes,  it  is  better. 

Q.    Is  it  a  safer  device?    A.    Yes,  it  is  a  safer  device. 

Q.  I  am  omitting  two  or  three  lines,  in  reference  to 
that  old  setting.  "The  counters  are  held  securely  in 
substantial  aluminum  cases,  which  fill  the  back  of  the 
machine  and  cover  the  working  parts  of  the  key  spindles 
and  restricting  strips,  but  if  it  should  be  necessary  to  get 
to  these  working  parts  to  adjust  or  repair  the  machine, 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  343 

these  cases  and  counters  can  be  readily  removed  and  re- 
placed again."    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (Reading):  "The  restricting  strips  for  the  in- 
dividual keys  are  neatly  made,  light  and  yet  strong,  and 
have  small  wedges  which  cause  the  restriction.  These 
wedges  slide  between  rollers,  which  gives  very  little  fric- 
tion, and  the  grouping  of  candidates  can  be  accomplished 
anywhere  on  the  machine  by  removing  one  or  more  pins 
passing  through  these  rollers.  The  removal  of  a  pin  does 
not  change  the  spacing  of  the  rollers,  but  allows  the 
wedges  to  be  pulled  up  in  a  different  order.  No  adjust- 
ment of  screws  or  insertion  of  additional  wedges  is  neces- 
sary, and  the  grouping  seems  to  be  positive."  You  are 
still  of  that  opinion?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  By  the  way,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  if  there  is  any 
material  wear  in  the  use  of  this  machine,  whether  it  is 
a  permanent  and  durable  thing?  A.  I  think  that  they 
will  not  show  serious  wear." 

1472  "Now,  on  the  fraudulent  manipulation,  you  say: 
"As  the  machine  now  stands,  it  is  possible  to  vote  a 
straight  ticket  of  any  party  with  the  straight  ticket  key, 
and  at  the  same  time  vote  a  straight  or  split  ticket  with 
the  regular  candidate  keys  anywhere  on  the  machine.  It 
is  done  by  first  pushing  down  the  release  lever,  which  al- 
lows individual  candidate  voting,  then  returning  this 
lever  and  holding  it  up  and  at  the  same  time  pulling  down 
and  gently  shaking  a  straight  ticket  key.  Pulling 
down  the  individual  key  releases  lever,  pulls  up 
a  restricting  wedge  in  the  straight  party  group, 
which     locks     the     straight     party     wedges     all     out 

1473  and  at  the  same  time  operates  a  slide  which 
turns  up  all  the  individual  restricting  clips  which 
hold  down  the  wedge  strips  connected  with  the  individual 
keys.  When  the  release  lever  is  held  up  and  the  straight 
party  ticket  key  shaken,  the  restricting  wedge  pulled  up 
by  the  release  lever  gradually  works  down  and  drops 
into  its  normal  position,  but  the  slide  controlling  the  rod 
carrying  the  individual  restricting  clips  does  not  return 
to  its  normal  position  by  the  shaking  process,  and  so  the 
restricting  devices  are  all  off,  and  the  machine  is  free  to 
be  voted  in  both  ways  at  the  same  time."    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Was  that  objection  cured  on  this  machine?  A. 
Yes,  that  was  a  different  device  for  operating  the  straight 
party  restriction  from  what  is  on  this  present  machine. 


344  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

Q,    'Could  you  consider  that  as  cured!    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  under  the  head  of  "Restricted  candidates" 
(Reading) :  "As  the  device  is  shown  it  allows  of  arrang- 
ing the  candidates  in  four  groups  of  three  keys  each,  and 
two,  three,  or  four  of  these  groups  can  be  used  as  desii-ed. 
The  ticket  now  placed  on  the  machine  uses  but  three  of 
these  groups.  Two  of  them  operate  together  on  the  re- 
stricting device  and  allow  three  votes  for  either  of  the 
two  candidates  or  two  for  either  one  of  them  and  one  for 
the  other.  The  other  group  operates  independently  and 
allows  1-1/2  votes  for  each  of  two  candidates,  leaving  one 
key  a  blank.  This  group  on  the  device  should  be  ar- 
ranged so  that  either  two  or  three  keys  could  be  con- 
trolled by  it,  and  then  if  but  two  candidates  are  on  the 
1474  ticket,  there  need  be  no  blank  key  left.  The  device  does 
not  permit  of  voting  1-1/2  votes  each  for  two  candidates 
by  using  a  single  key,  but  it  could  be  made  to  do  so  by  S 
slight  modification.    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  find  that  cured?  A.  Well,  it  must  have 
been  an  error  in  the  man  who  assembled  that  machine,  to 
leave  out  that  as  it  was  before,  was  a  joke. 

Q.  "Primary  voting  device:"  (Reading):  "The 
mechanism  for  arranging  the  machine  for  primary  voting 
is  simple  and  easy  to  adjust  and  operate.  If  necessary, 
several  of  the  horizontal  bars  can  be  arranged  to  be 
grouped  together  to  serve  the  one  party,  and  yet  all  are 
controlled  by  the  primary  lever  as  easily  as  if  only  one 
bar  for  a  party  were  used."    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  still  think  that?  A.  Yes,  that  is  the  sam« 
device  that  is  there  now. 

Q.  Do  you  object  to  this  primary  device,  in  that  it 
gives  the  judges  a  chance  to  play  with  the  party  lever 
and  prevent  the  voter  from  voting?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  would  result  ordinarily  in  the  voter  making 
a  complaint?    A.    Yes,  and  the — 

Q.  The  voter  would?  A.  And  the  machine  would 
have — there  would  have  to  be  a  vote  recorded  on  the 
public  counter  with  no  vote  cast  on  the  machine,  prob- 
ably. 
1476  Witness  thinks  the  device  for  locking  out  the  parties 
at  the  primary  elections  could  be  improved.  The  machine 
should  permit  the  judge  to  pull  the  party  lever,  but  not 
change  it  afterwards  as  he  can  now  do.  The  judare  can 
be  watched  by  the  party  watcher,  which  might  afford  a 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  345 

reasonable  precaution.     Witness  would  not  reject  this 
machine  solely  because  of  this  defect. 

1477  "Q.  Under  head  of  'Positive  Action'  (reading) : 
'This  swing  arm  "B"  and  the  slot  in  the  vertical  bar 
which  operates  the  restricting  slide  are  evidently  in- 
tended to  throw  the  slide  out  of  action  when  using  the 
machine  in  a  primaiy  election,  but  they  are  not  necessary 
and  if  they  were  left  off  I  think  the  machine  would  be 
positive  and  reliable  in  its  action.  All  parts  are  well  pro- 
portioned and  accurately  made.  The  movements  of  parts 
are  controlled  by  cams  or  levers,  but  few  springs  are 
used,  and  they  are  in  places  where  they  are  not  likely  to 
give  trouble.'  A.  That  is  the  swinging  ann,  isn't  it, 
that  is  spoken  of? 

"Q.  Yes,  speaking  of  the  swinging  arm.  A.  Yes,  that 
whole  device  was  modified  when  this  type  of  machine  was 
brought  out. 

"Q.  Under  the  head  of  'Party  Bars'  (reading) : 
'Party  bars  are  used  only  for  restricting  purposes  in  pri- 
mary elections,  and  if  they  were  used  with  a  party  lever 
to  make  all  the  keys  move  when  voting  a  straight  ticket, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  redesign  the  whole  mechanism 
and  make  it  more  complicated.'    A.    Yes." 

1478  The  party  key  at  the  end  of  the  line  devoted  to  indi- 
vidual independent  candidates  cannot  be  locked  out  to 
prevent  its  being  voted  as  a  party  key. 

1479  All  the  objections  made  in  the  report  of  1909  have  been 
made  in  the  present  machine. 

"Q.  Concluding,  in  this  report  is  shown  that  this  re- 
port— not  one  of  the  machines  exhibited  is  satisfactory  in 
its  present  condition,  but  that  the  changes  suggested,  if 
the  changes  suggested  were  made,  the  Empire  machine 
would  be  reliable  and  positive  in  its  action?  A.  It  is 
that  today  when  properly  set  and  properly  used." 

''Q.  (reading)  :  'The  Triumph  also,  no  doubt,  can  be 
made  to  vote  more  positively,  but  considerable  work 
would  have  to  be  done  before  they  eliminate  all  its  faults. 
This  machine  has  the  party  bars  and  levers,  which  I 
think  makes  the  proper  way  of  voting  the  straight  ticket, 
but  I  do  not  see  how  they  could  be  applied  to  the  Empire 
machine  without  adding  very  much  to  the  complication 
of  the  mechanism. 

"  'The  cumulative  voting  attachment  of  the  Triumph 
machine  provides  for  voting  in  all  the  desired  ways,  while 


346  Witness  Cannot  Recommend  Purchase. 

the  Empire  does  not,  but  the  Triumph  attachment  is  un- 
reliable and  the  Empire  is  positive.  Another  group  could 
be  added,  if  desired,  to  the  Empire  device  without  diffi- 
culty. 

"  'While  the  Empire  machine  can,  with  a  very  little 
■  changing  be  made  to  do  all  it  claims  to  do,  I  am  not  sure 
that  it  would  be  best  for  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners to  purchase  them  at  the  present  time.  The  same 
trouble  exists  now  that  was  present  two  years  ago,  al- 
though not  to  so  great  an  extent.  The  machines  are  large 
and  heavy,  difficult  to  handle,  and  awkward  to  store.  I 
think  the  Empire  machine  will  stand  the  moving  very 
well  and  will  not  be  liable  to  get  out  of  adjustment,  but 
whether  it  is  wise  for  the  Board  to  incur  the  expense  and 
trouble  that  will  come  with  these  machines,  I  do  not  feel 
competent  to  say.'    A.    Yes." 

1481  The  present  voting  machines  are  like  those  former  ma- 
chines examined  in  1907. 

1482  The  witness  does  not  see  how  the  present  machine  could 
be  reduced  in  weight  materially. 

1484  In  rejecting  the  Empire  machine  in  1909,  size  and 
weight  was  one  objection  in  the  witness'  mind,  but  the 
witness  thinks  that  the  Empire  type  of  machine,  even 
with  much  lighter  weight,  will  not  be  satisfactory  in  Chi- 
cago. 

1485  A  machine  of  this  type,  to  meet  conditions  in  Chicago, 
especially  primary  elections,  would  have  to  be  very  much 
larger  than  the  present  Empire  machine.  To  meet  Chi- 
cago's conditions  the  face  of  the  machine  would  have  to 
be  twice  as  large. 

1486  The  machine  should  have  a  party  lever  and  should 
abolish  the  straight  ticket  column. 

1489  "Q.  The  party  lever  would  be  equivalent  to  the  party 
circle  on  a  ballot,  an  ordinary  ballot?  A.  No,  sir;  I 
think  not;  but  it  does  group  the  regular  candidates  of  a 
party  together  and  they  would  be  voted  at  one  time  and 
then  the  voter  would  scratch  or  split  the  ticket  as  he  saw 
fit." 

In  straight  ticket  voting  there  is  no  difference  in  the 
act  between  voting  the  party  lever  for  all  the  candidates 
and  voting  the  party  key  for  the  straight  ticket. 

1491  Witness  includes  in  the  word  "type,"  of  which  ho 
deems  the  Empire  machine  objectionable  for  the  C'tv  of 
Chicago,  the  idea  of  facilitating  voting,  which  he  deems 


Empire  Machine  Not  Adapted  to  Chicago  Conditions.  347 

the  voting  machine  was  intended  to  accomplish.  Another 
purpose  of  the  voting  machine  is  to  prevent  fraud. 
1492  In  his  report  of  1909  the  witness  said  the  design  of  the 
machine  was  very  satisfactory  both  as  to  arrangement  of 
the  keyboard  and  as  to  size;  but  he  did  not  feel  compe- 
tent to  advise  the  Election  Commissioners  to  buy  that 
machine. 

Witness  did  not  think  the  fact  that  the  specific  objec- 
tions pointed  out  in  his  1909  report  were  corrected  made 
the  Empire  machine  satisfactory.  It  is  not  the  proper 
type'  of  machine  for  Chicago. 

1495  Witness  did  not  vote  in  Chicago  at  the  April  primary 
of  1912,  but  knew  something  of  the  ballot  that  was  used 
and  wondered  how  it  could  be  used  on  a  voting  machine ; 
had  particularly  in  mind  the  Republican  primary  ballot. 

Assuming  that  there  were  394  names  on  the  primary 
ticket  in  1912,  whether  they  could  appear  on  the  Empire 
9-party,  70-key  machine  would  depend  on  how  the  candi- 
dates were  grouped  and  how  they  were  arranged  in  par- 
ties. There  were  46  Republican  candidates  for  County 
Commissioners. 

1496  This  witness  advocates  the  use  of  at  least  four  hori- 
zontal rows  and  12  vertical  columns  for  the  Republicans' 
County  Commissioner  candidates,  and  would  have  further 
required  the  use  of  the  same  number  of  vertical  columns 
by  all  the  parties  for  County  Commissioner  candidates. 
"And  there  would  not  have  been  space  enough  on  the 
machine  to  accommodate  all  of  the  parties'  candidates, 
other  groups  would  have  to  have  been  formed  also, — 
that  is  only  one — " 

1497  The  witness  attempted  to  devise  a  way  of  grouping  the 
primary  ticket  of  1912  on  the  machine  and  could  not  find 
a  way  of  doing  it. 

"Q.  Assuming  that  in  the  last  four  years,  including 
the  Municipal  primary  of  this  year,  that  the  highest  num- 
ber of  candidates  on  the  machine  was  44,  would  you  say 
that  this  type  of  machine  would  carry  that?  A.  That 
would  depend  on  the  groups,  how  the  candidates  came 
in  the  other  parties,  because,  when  you  arranged  the 
group  on  one  party,  you  have  to  have  the  same  size  group 
in  all  parties,  and  it  ties  up  that  machine  very  rapidly." 

With  44  candidates  on  the  Municipal  primary,  you 
could  group  a  70-key  machine  for  one  party  very  easily. 


348  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

1498  In  the  mayoralty  campaign  there  were  candidates  for 
Mayor,  Treasurer  and  Aldermen. 

1499  Witness  thinks  there  will  be  probably  no  trouble  in 
grouping  44  candidates  for  these  three  offices  on  the  Em- 
pire machine.  If  the  machine  would  not  accommodate  44 
candidates  for  the  three  offices,  it  is  not  available  for  pri- 
mary purposes  at  all. 

1500  The  witness  is  not  prepared  to  state  the  rule  fixing 
the  limitations  for  primary  purposes  of  the  Empire  vot- 
ing machine;  "if  you  have  a  large  number  in  one  party 
and  a  small  number  in  another,  you  are  going  to  lose  a 
lot  of  the  face  of  the  machine. ' ' 

Witness  is  asked  whether  placing  paper  zeros  on  the 
counters  is  a  practical  fraud  that  could  be  committed  by 
judges  of  election. 

"A.  There  would  be  no  object  in  the  judges  putting 
pasters  on  the  counters  if  they  could  not  set  the  counters 
to  suit  themselves." 

1501  With  the  custodian's  keys  the  judges  could  set  the 
counters  to  suit  themselves  and  take  off  the  returns  from 
the  counters  as  they  had  set  them.  The  only  check  against 
this  is  the  check  against  their  tampering  with  the  coun- 
ters  and  the  check  of  publicity  and  outside  observation. 
Independent  observers  present  when  the  custodian  sets 
the  machine,  the  sealing  of  the  machine  and  its  delivery, 
sealed,  to  the  election  judges,  would  operate  as  a  check 
upon  the  custodian. 

1503  When  properly  working,  the  counters  are  set  at  zero, 
but  witness  found  one  that  was  not.  It  was  defective. 
With  correct  inspections,  the  zero  fraud  would  probably 
be  detected.  With  independent  inspection  and  a  watch 
on  the  custodian,  the  general  fraud  could  be  prevented. 
It  would  be  isolated  instances. 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  349 

VOLUME  XVII. 

Morning  Session. 
Tuesday,  August  5,  1913. 

Clarence  E.  DEPxri'  resumed  stand: 

Cro'ss-Examination  by  Mr.  McEiven  Continued. 

1506  Witness  testifies  that  Ms  answer  in  regard  to  what  was 
done  with  the  Election  Commissioners  or  with  the  ma- 
chine was  stated  as  a  theory  of  handling  the  machine, 
rather  than  any  actual  observation. 

Witness  does  not  know  whether  he  has  enumerated  all 
of  the  objections  he  had  to  the  machine,  but  deems  it  an 
objection  that  the  machine  requires  reading  of  the  coun- 
ters by  the  judges  and  does  not  print  the  ballot. 

1507  The  practical  consideration  of  the  voting  machine  ques- 
tion must  take  into  account  the  human  element  and  the 
counting  of  the  ballots  before  and  after  election. 

The  only  check  on  the  human  element  considered  by 
itself  is  inspection  and  watching.  The  machine  won't 
do  it. 

Witness  thinks  the  party  restriction  lever  is  set  after 
the  voter  starts  to  move  the  voting  lever.  Certainly  after 
the  voter  has  thrown  it  over  to  the  right. 

The  Republican  voter  woukl  find  that  he  could  not  vote 
his  ticket  if  the  party  lever  was  set  at  the  Democratic 
party. 

1508  Witness  is  asked  to  compare  this  situation  with  that 
of  a  Republican  voter  handed  a  Democratic  ballot  at  a 
primary  election,  and  says  "I  don't  know  that  there  would 
be  more  likelihood  to  occur  that  way  than  the  other.  With 
this  machine,  however,  the  vote  either  would  not 
vote  at  all,  or  he  would  have  to  vote  the  party  he  did 
not  affiliate  with." 

The  judges  could  record  a  spoiled  vote,  write  down  the 
names  of  witnesses  and  then  permit  the  voter  to  vote 
his  party  ticket. 

1509  The  restricting  rollers  in  the  machine  are  of  steel;  the 
wedges  of  brass.  Assuming  the  wedges  moved  one-half 
inch  and  that  the  machine  was  used  a  thousand  times, 
the  movement  of  the  restricting  wedges  would  be  500 


350  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

inches.    Witness  does  not  anticipate  there  would  be  seri- 
ous wear, 
1510    The  only  place  where  serious  wear  would  occur  would 
be  in  voting  a  large  group. 

Witness  thinks  that  it  would  be  better  in  many  places 
on  the  machine  if  the  metal  used  were  a  non-corrosive 
metal  rather  than  steel  with  a  non-corrosive  coating.  The 
requisite  hardness  could  be  secured  in  a  non-corrosive 
metal. 

Brass  wears  easily  as  compared  with  steel  and  the 
wedges  where  the  wear  occurs  are  of  brass. 

Witness  believes  the  whole  strip  to  which  the  wedges 
are  attached  should  be  made  of  brass.  Strips  of  brass  of 
the  same  size  as  the  steel  would  be  amply  strong. 

1512  The  angle-steel  device  for  preventing  the  working  of 
the  slides  is  of  the  same  general  class  of  devices  with 
the  wire  clips  and  the  rubber  bands.  It  would  be  less 
difficult  to  find  a  restricting  wedge  on  a  voting  machine 
than  a  restricting  wedge  placed  into  the  slot  of  a  ballot 
box. 

After  the  judges  discovered  the  use  of  the  angle-iron 
they  could  remove  it  with  the  point  of  a  knife,  but  it  is 
not  readily  discovered. 

1513  After  a  voter  knew  what  to  look  for  he  would  find  it 
no  doubt,  but  not  easily  otherwise.  A  restriction  would 
naturally  cause  complaint  from  the  voter. 

Witness  having  testified  that  the  judges  could  enter 
the  machine  before  and  after  voter  voted  and  know  how 
he  cast  his  ballot,  and  so  might  be  able  to  report  progress 
of  the  workers,  does  not  believe  that  this  would 
be  particularly  guarded  against  by  a  rule  of  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  "not  under  certain  condi- 
tions in  certain  precincts  in  Chicago." 

1514  To  permit  judges  to  note  progress  of  election  would 
require  two  keys,  not  necessarily  two  judges,  but  all  the 
keys  are  in  one  block.  This  would  have  to  be  done  in  the 
presence  of  the  other  judges,  the  clerks  and  the  watchers. 

The  lock  on  the  end  would  have  to  be  turned  and  then 
the  lock  in  the  back,  the  rear  door. 

1515  The  turning  of  a  lock  on  the  end  would  stop  the  use 
of  the  machine  and  temporarily  suspend  the  election. 

The  judges  could  set  the  device  so  as  to  produce  more 
votes  than  is  lawful  for  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, provided  they  have  the  custodian's  key  or  a  du- 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  351 

1516  plicate  key  to  the  lower  compartment.  Without  such  a 
key  not. 

All  restricting  devices  depend  on  getting  into  the  lower 
compartment.  Without  that  the  adjustment  of  the  ma- 
chine could  not  be  shifted. 

The  machine  will  act  according  to  the  way  it  is  set  and 
must  be  set  wrong  to  permit  more  than  the  lawful  num- 
ber of  votes  for  members  of  the  General  Assembly. 

1517  It  is  not  necessary  to  lock  the  voting  front  of  the  ma- 
chine in  order  to  get  into  the  lower  rear  compartment. 

The  duplication  of  keys  is  a  fraud  that  could  not  be 
practiced  generally  throughout  the  city,  but  it  could  be 
done,  possibly,  in  several  precincts. 

1518  All  of  the  voting  machines  require  a  sufficient  move- 
ment of  the  key  to  cause  the  operating  mechanism  to 
cast  a  vote. 

1519  In  the  Empire  machine,  the  necessary  movement  of  the 
key  is  11/32  of  an  inch.  If  moved  9/32  the  machine  will 
not  register  the  vote.  3/8  of  an  inch  movement  will  in- 
sure a  vote. 

It  would  be  practical  to  build  a  machine  that  would  reg- 
ister with  less  key  movements. 

1520  The  International  requires  only  3/16  total  movement. 
Witness  does  not  know  the  movement  required  to  make 
the  International  register. 

As  a  mechanic,  witness  knows  there  is  a  point  in  key 
movement  at  which  the  International  would  not  register. 
Witness  thinks  it  better  to  have  a  rather  long  movement 
of  the  key.    The  voter  can  see  it  move. 

1521  Witness  says  that  when  a  voter  runs  his  finger  along 
the  keys  as  instructed,  a  key  will  sometimes  not  go  down 
the  full  voting  distance,  and  in  this  way  a  vote  might 
be  lost. 

The  key,  when  not  moved  in  the  voting  position  by  a 
voter,  returns  to  normal  position  upon  the  release  of  the 
voting  lever. 

In  all  voting  machines,  the  key  must  be  moved  suffi- 
ciently to  engage  the  operating  mechanism. 

1522  The  handling  of  voting  machines  has  become  easier  in 
Chicago  through  the  year  with  gasoline  and  electric  trucks 
than  formerly. 

At  the  warehouse,  a  lifting  device  makes  it  compara- 
tively easy  to  take  a  machine  out  of  and  put  it  into  a 
box. 


352  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

1523  The  difficulty  in  handling  occurs  at  the  polling  place 
and  there  one  trained  man,  with  a  number  of  others,  can 
lift  a  machine  and  put  it  into  position. 

1524  The  machine  has  castors  and  when  in  voting  position 
stands  on  them. 

1525  Witness  has  seen  the  machine  put  on  its  legs  at  the 
warehouse,  not  outside. 

1526  Witness  thinks  it  woiild  be  a  bad  method  of  putting 
the  legs  under  the  machine  to  lift  one  end  at  a  time,  but 
has  never  seen  it  done. 

Witness  thinks  it  would  be  difficult  to  equip  the  Em- 
pire machine  with  a  party  lever. 

Party  nominations  for  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly vary  from  time  to  time ;  maybe  one,  two  or  three. 
A  machine  with  a  party  lever  on  the  cumulative  voting 
part  would  have  to  provide  engaging  points  on  the  party 

1527  bar  and  every  bar  would  have  to  be  changed. 

Witness  thinks  this  matter  was  considered  in  the  test  of 
1907.  In  that  year  the  voting  machine  experts  wanted  to 
change  the  position  of  the  cumulative  voting  device  from 
the  middle  to  the  end  of  the  machine  so  as  to  avoid  this 
mechanical  difficulty. 

Witness  does  not  know  that  Judge  Einaker  ruled  that 
the  cumulative  voting  device  must  be  in  the  middle  part  of 
the  machine. 

Witness  has  seen  a  cumulative  voting  device  else- 
where than  in  the  middle  of  the  voting  machine,  on  the 
second  machine  which  he  examined  in  1910. 

1528  Witness  does  not  think  the  present  voting  machine 
meets  the  one-minute  voting  requirement  of  the  statute. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  requirement?  A.  I 
don't  think  of  anything  just  at  present. 
1528-1531  "Q.  Well,  now,  let  me  enumerate  these  and  see 
what  you  say  and  think.  The  statute  provides  in  Sec- 
tion 1  of  the  Act  printed  in  the  copy  of  the  resolution  on 
page  two,  beginning  at  line  34,  that  these  machines  shall 
be  inspected  by  voting  machine  experts  who  shall  file  a 
report  certifying  that  they  have  examined  the  machine 
and  that  it  complies  with  these  requirements. 

Mr.  Deneen.  May  I  hand  him  one  of  those  so  that  he 
can  follow  you? 

Mr.  McEwEisr.  Yes.  (Paper  handed  witness.)  That 
it  affords  each  elector  an  opportunity  to  vote  in  absolute 
secrecy! 


Requirements  of  Voting  Machine  Law.  353 

A.  Yes,  sir,  you  wish  me  to  answer  a  question,  does  it 
reasonably  comply  with  that,  put  in  a  reasonable  construc- 
tion on  that?    Yes. 

Q.  And  that  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  a  straight 
party  ticket?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  a  ticket,  se- 
lected in  part  from  nominees  of  one  party  and  in  part 
from  nominees  of  any  and  all  other  parties?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  in  part  from  an  independent  nomination,  and 
in  part  of  persons  not  in  nomination  by  any  party  or 
upon  any  independent  ticket?  A.  Yes. 
.1529  Q.  That  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  a  written  or 
printed  ballot  of  his  own  selection,  for  any  person  for 
any  oflSce  for  which  he  may  desire  ?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  for  all  candi- 
dates for  whom  he  is  entitled  to  vote,  and  prevents  him 
from  voting  for  any  candidate  for  any  office  more  than 
one  unless  he  is  lawfully  entitled  to  cast  more  than  one 
vote?  A.  When  the  machine  is  properly  adjusted  that  is 
true. 

Q.  Unless  he  is  lawfully  entitled  to  cast  more  than  one 
vote  for  one  candidate,  and  in  that  event  permits  him  to 
cast  only  as  many  votes  for  that  candidate  as  he  is  by 
law  entitled  to  and  no  more.  A.  When  the  machine  is 
properly  adjusted  that  is  true. 

Q.  And  that  it  prevents  the  elector  from  voting  for 
more  than  one  person  for  the  same  office,  unless  he  is  law- 
fully entitled  to  vote  for  more  than  one  person  there- 
fore, and  in  that  event  permits  him  to  vote  for  as  many 
persons  for  that  office  as  he  is  by  law  entitled  to  vote  and 
no  more?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  that  this  machine  will  register  correctly  by 
means  of  exact  counters  every  vote  cast  for  the  regular 
tickets  thereon?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  has  the  capacity  to  contain  the  tickets  of  seven 
political  parties  with  the  names  of  all  candidates  thereon 
together  with  all  propositions  to  be  voted  upon,  except 
that  it  may  be  so  constructed  that  the  names  of  all  can- 
didates for  presidential  electors  will  not  occur  thereon, 
but  in  lieu  thereof  one  ballot  label  at  each  party  colmun 
or  row  shall  contain  only  the  words,  "Presidential  Elec- 
1530  tor's,"  preceded  by  the  party  names?  A.  Yes,  sir,  that 
is  placed  there. 


354  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

Q.  That  all  votes  cast  on  the  machine  on  a  regular 
ballot  or  ballots  shall  be  registered?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  voters  may  by  means  of  irregular  ballots  or 
otherwise  vote  for  any  person  for  any  office,  although 
such  person  may  not  have  been  nominated  by  any  party 
and  his  name,  may  not  appear  on  such  machines!  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  That  when  a  vote  is  cast  for  any  person  for  any 
such  office,  when  his  name  does  not  appear  on  the  ma- 
chine, the  elector  cannot  vote  for  any  name  on  the  mar- 
chine  for  the  same  office?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  each  elector  can,  understandingly  and  with- 
in the  period  of  one  minute  cast  his  vote  for  all  candidates 
of  his  choice.    A.    That  I  have  a  question  about. 

Q.  That  in  case  the  machine  is  so  constructed  that  the 
candidates  for  presidential  electors  of  any  parties  can 
be  voted  for  only  by  voting  for  the  ballot  label  containing 
the  words  "Presidential  Electors,"  by  voting  an  irreg- 
ular ticket  as  hereinafter  defined,  elector  may  vote  for 
any  person  or  persons  he  may  choose  for  presidential 
electors?  A.  Yes,  he  would  have  difficulty  in  doing  that 
1531  for  independent  electors  on  this  machine,  he  would  have 
to  write  pretty  fine. 

Q.  You  mean  on  account  of  the  size  of  the  space?  A. 
The  size  of  the  opening  through  which  he  woulo  have  to 
write. 

Q.  That  the  machine  was  provided  with  a  lock  or  locks 
by  the  use  of  which  any  movement  of  the  voting  or  regis- 
tering mechanism  is  absolutely  prevented  so  that  it  can- 
not be  tampered  with,  or  manipulated  for  any  fraudu- 
lent purpose?  A.  Yes,  the  locks  on  this  machine,  I  think 
are  not  as  secure  as  should  be. 

Q.  Well,  as  long  as  the  lock  holds,  why  it  meets  with 
the  requirement  of  the  law  ?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  the  machine  is  susceptible  of  being  closed 
during  the  progress  of  the  voting  so  that  no  person  can 
see  or  know  the  number  of  votes  registered  for  any  can- 
didate? A.  Yes,  sir,  susceptible  of  being  closed  and  is 
locked,  but  it  is  possible  to  be  opened. 

Q.     Depending  on  the  judges  doing  their  duty  or  not 

doing  their  duty?    A.    Yes. 

1531-2    Yale  locks  are  as  good  as  any  in  the  market,  but  a 

better  lock  might  be  devised  for  use  where  the  Yale  lock 

is  used  on  the  machine.     Witness  does  not  know  of  any 


Voting  in  a  Minute.  355 

special  lock  made  by  any  factory.  A  special  key  could 
be  duplicated  but  it  would  be  a  little  more  difficult. 
1533  Witness  saw  Chainnan  Butts  vote  experimentally  on 
the  machine  at  the  Pugh  warehouse ;  he  voted  a  split  ticket 
in  two  minutes  and  ten  seconds.  He  worked  as  fast  as 
he  could. 

Whether  the  witness  could  vote  in  less  than  a  minute 
depends  on  how  he  wanted  to  vote. 

All  voting  machines  witness  has  seen  have  been  sub- 
ject to  voting  time  objections. 

AVitness  has  seen  elections  outside  of  Cook  County 
where  they  didn't  have  the  large  ballot  we  have  here. 

1535  The  Cook  County  sample  ballot  indicated  by  the  wit- 
ness has  61  names  and  witness  thinks  in  many  cases  it 
might  not  be  voted  in  one  minute. 

1536  Witness  says  whether  he  could  vote  the  61  name  ballot 
would  depend  on  when  and  how  he  wanted  to  split  it. 

"A.  That  would  depend  on  the  candidates  that  were 
put  up  on  the  different  tickets ;  I  might  want  to  split  it  in 
a  minute.  The  voter  has  got  to  find  the  names  of  the 
candidates  he  is  voting  for,  and  that  takes  some  time 
if  he  has  to  find  many  of  them;  it  will  exceed  his  time 
limit,  I  think.  I  do  not  vote  the  Australian  ballot  in  a 
minute. ' ' 

The  Empire  machine  provides  for  grouping  of  ques- 
tions so  that  the  judge  can  control  the  questions  that  the 
voter  may  vote  on.  The  voter  can  readily  discover  that 
he  is  locked  out  on  a  question  he  was  entitled  to  vote  on. 

1537  The  judge  of  election  can  control  the  question  or  of- 
fice lock-out  device  at  anj'  time  and  might  permit  a  woman 
voter  to  vote  on  all  questions  and  for  all  offices.  The 
only  protection  against  the  misuse  of  the  lock-out  device 
is  the  honesty  of  the  judge. 

The  voting  machine  might  not  be  able  to  accommodate 
all  the  questions  of  public  policy  if  printed  in  full. 

1538  Question  number  1  read  by  Dr.  Taylor  the  other  day 
in  eight  minutes  and  a  half  was  printed  in  full  on  the 
machine  in  fine  type  and  the  question  the  voter  voted 
on  was'  printed  in  larger  type.  Witness  does  not  know- 
that  the  full  question  was  printed  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  bankers  who  were  to  purchase  the  bonds. 

The  machines  that  print  the  ballot  have  to  use  a  ribbon, 
so  far  as  witness  has  seen.  Witness  has  never  seen  any 
confusion  about  the  reading  of  the  6s,  8s  and  9s  on  the 
printing  voting  machine. 


356  Ordinary  Voter  Cannot  Do  It. 

On  the  Calkins  machine  the  printing  could  be  done  in 
one-half  minute  all  at  one  stroke.  The  Calkins  machine 
had  a  capacity  of  several  hundred  names. 

1540  Witness  was  never  a  challenger,  a  candidate  or  judge 
of  election,  and  his  testimony  is  therefore  theoretical. 

1541  The  objections  to  voting  machines  read  by  the  witness 
relating  to  angle  irons  and  so  forth,  are  not  theoretical. 

Witness  said  nothing  about  these  things  in  his  re- 
port of  1910.  "I  thought  there  were  enough  other  ob- 
jections to  make  it  unnecessary  to  make  them  then." 

Witness  made  a  report  to  the  preceding  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  on  July  1st,  1910,  on  the  Empire  vot- 
ing machine.  In  that  report  witness  said  the  Empire 
machine  was  durable  and  reliable  in  action,  meaning  re- 
liable in  action  when  properly  adjusted. 

1542  Mechanism  of  the  machine  is  very  satisfactoiy  and  is 
incapable  of  ' '  being  worked  wrong  unless  it  is  set  wrong. ' ' 

Witness  said  in  the  report  of  July  1,  1910,  that  the  ma- 
chine would  record  vote  accurately  and  quickh'  and  says 
so  still. 

1543  Witness  was  paid  for  his  reports  of  1909  and  1910. 
Witness  does  not  know  that  on  Friday  last  22  experi- 
mental votes  were  cast  upon  the  machine  in  a  minute. 

1544  Witness  does  not  know  the  percentage  of  straight  and 
split  votes  cast  at  elections  here. 

Witness  never  assisted  in  the  counting  of  ballots  and 
does  not  know  how  many  votes  were  marked  with  identi- 
fication marks  by  the  voter  so  as  to  show  the  way  the 
voter  voted. 

Such  markings  would  not  be  possible  on  a  voting  ma- 
chine. 

1545  Wire  clips  and  rubber  bands  used  on  the  face  of  a  ma- 
chine would  not  permit  the  voter  to  vote  more  than  he 
was  entitled  to. 

1546  Succeeding  voter  would  be  restricted  from  voting  on 
certain  candidates  if  they  did  not  discover  the  clip  or 
pin.      The  first  voter  is  unaffected. 

The  releasing  knob  is  intended  to  peiTnit  the  voter  to 
leave  the  voting  machine  without  voting.  Mo\ang  any  key 
on  the  face  of  the  machine  will  answer  the  same  pur- 
pose.    Witness  cannot  see  the  need  of  a  releasing  knob. 

1547  Witness  does  not  believe  an  ordinary  voter  could  vote 
a  mixed  ticket  for  60  candidates  in  a  minute. 

Witness  does  not  think  the  present  plan  of  having  one 
custodian   is    practical.     A   bi-partisan   board    of    cus- 


Mechanical  Limit  to  Group  Voting.  357 

todians  might  help  the  situation  but  might  not  be  satisfac- 
tory. 

Witness  thinks  the  man  who  cannot  read  or  write  can- 
not use  the  machine  without  an  instructor  at  his  elbow. 

AVitness  thinks  that  the  necessity  for  pulling  down  the 
key  11/32  of  an  inch  furnishes  possibility,  of  error. 
1548  Witness  does  not  know  whether  it  would  be  mechan- 
ically possible  to  devise  a  key  which  would  vote  the  mo- 
ment it  was  moved.  It  would  be  more  desirable  if  it 
could  be  done. 

With  44  candidates  for  County  Commissioner  at  a  pri- 
mary it  would  be  necessary  to  use  four  rows  for  this 
group. 

1550  About  15  in  a  row  is  the  mechanical  limit;  where  the 
grouping  becomes  more  than  15  the  restriction  wedges 
will  not  act  because  they  bind  on  themselves. 

If  the  judges  are  ordered  not  to  open  the  machine  the 
effect  would  be  to  stop  the  election  in  case  the  machine 
got  out  of  order. 

Less  than  four  men  could  not  transport  and  handle  the 
machine. 

1551  A  voter  who  by  mistake  throws  up  the  wrong  independ- 
ent voting  slide  cannot  correct  his  vote.  Raising  the 
slide  absolutely  restricts  the  column  from  working. 

Witness  supposes  the  post  oflSce  bad  special  locks  and 
special  keys. 

Witness  regards  the  last  November  election  as  a  good 
test  of  the  voting  machines  in  regard  to  voting  in  a 
minute.     The  larger  a  ticket  is  it  is  the  best  test  on  time. 

The  voter  would  vote  for  an  independent  candidate  in 
the  irregular  row  above  only  when  the  candidates  name 
did  not  appear  printed  on  the  machine. 

1552  Witness  does  not  know  that  Judge  Binaker  stated  re- 
cently that  there  would  not  be  more  than  four  such  names 

_  in  100,000  votes. 

To  elect  an  independent  candidate  through  independent 
slide  written  voting  would  require  writing  in  the  names 
a  good  many  times. 

1553  Mr.McEwen  produces  a  section  of  a  device  to  illustrate 
how  the  Empire  voting  machine  works. 

Witness  identifies  it  as  a  model  of  the  individual  re- 
stricting device. 

The  strips  to  which  the  wedges  are  attached  move  up 
and  down  the  wedges  drop  against  each  other  with  each 


358  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

motion.  "It  will  take  a  long  time  for  them  to  wear 
appreciably. ' ' 
1554-5  The  voter  who  moves  an  independent  slide  is  re- 
stricted from  voting  afterwards  in  the  same  column; 
but  if  he  had  voted  below  first,  under  the  instructions  for 
voting,  so  that  he  releases  that  column,  there  would  not 
be  anything  to  prevent  his  voting  up  there. 

The  use  of  a  key  in  a  column  restricts  the  slide  and 
vice  versa. 

If  the  voter  moves  the  slide  he  cannot  move  any  key 
in  the  same  column  again. 

1556  Under  the  cumulative  voting  system  the  cumulative 
voting  device  must  provide  four  ways  for  voting  for  each 
candidate  for  representative,  1  vote,  2  votes,  1^  votes 
and  3  votes.  With  3  candidates  to  provide  for  all  con- 
tingencies would  require  12  different  provisions. 

1557  When  the  pin  between  the  1|  and  single  voting  com- 
partment of  the  cumulative  voting  device  is  removed  the 
voter  would  be  restricted  and  could  not  vote  in  the  com- 
partment. 

Witness  thinks,  however,  that  so  far  as  the  individual 
candidates  are  concerned,  the  removal  of  the  pin  would 
enable  the  voter  to  vote  five  instead  of  three. 

1558  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

The  witness  was  paid  for  the  reports  made  in  1909  and 
1910  and  made  four  different  examinations  for  the  old 
Board.  He  was  paid  each  time  and  each  time  advised 
the  Commissioners  not  to  purchase  the  machines. 

Witness'  report  gave  certain  objections  to  the  machine, 
but  not  all. 

Witness  has  never  entered  a  voting  booth  while  the 
voter  was  marking  his  ballot  or  for  the  purpose  of  seeing 
the  voter  mark  it  and  his  opinion  on  such  things,  if  he 
had  any,  would  be  purely  speculative ;  so  would  his  opin- 
ion as  to  whether  a  voter  would  observe  a  rubber  band 
on  the  face  of  the  machine. 
1561  The  witness  has  no  practical  information  as  to  what 
the  voter  could  do  on  the  face  of  the  machine. 

Witness  does  not  remember  an  instance  cited  by  coun- 
sel for  the  Commission  wherein  it  is  said  Alderman  Snow 
was  nominated  by  having  2,000  names  written  in  on  the 
voting  machine. 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  359 

1565  The  character  of  the  work  of  the  machine  depends  upon 
the  honesty  and  intelligence  of  the  voter  and  the  judge 
and  the  custodian. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Yes.    Q.     Now,  referring  to  the  ques- 
tion asked  here  by  Judge  McEwen  regarding  the  points 
required  in  the  ballot  law,  page  2,  beginning  at  No.  30 — 
line  30. 
1566-73     "Mr.  McEwen.    That  is  the  voting  machine  law! 

' '  Mr.  Deneen.  That  is  the  voting  machine  law.  Thirty- 
four  is  the  question  about  the  'providing,  however';  it 
begins  at  line  30  down  here ;  do  you  see  it  there? 

"A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  And  running  down  to  line  34.  Judge  McEwen 
asked  you  whether  or  not  this  complied  absolutely  with 
the  provision  that  it  affords  electors  an  opportunity  to 
vote  in  absolute  secrecy. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Excuse  me,  I  did  not  ask  you  whether 
it  complied  absolutely.    I  said  'reasonably  and  practic- 

1566  ably.'    I  used  those  words. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  see;  the  absolute  secrecy  then — ^yours 
was  reasonable  and  practicable  secrecy. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Oh,  no,  that  is  not  what  I  said.  I  asked 
him  considering  those  questions  reasonably  and  prac- 
ticably as  to  all  requirements  of  the  law,  did  he  feel  the 
machine  complied  with  those  questions.  I  went  on  and 
enumerated. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Professor,  regarding  your  answer  to 
that,  the  judges  have  access  to  the  counters  before  a  man 
votes? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  they  may  have  after  he  votes?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  If  they  inspected  the  counters  before  he  votes  and 
afterwards  he  would  not  vote  in  great  secrecy,  would 
he?  A.  I  think  they  could  tell  if  they  turned  to  read  the 
counters,  just  what  he  voted  for. 

Q.     Just  what  he  voted  for  ?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  The  second  clause  (reading):  "That  it  enables 
each  elector  to  vote  a  straight  party  ticket,"  the  custo- 
dian can  prevent  him  doing  so  when  he  thinks  he  has 
voted  for  it,  can  he,  put  on  obstacles  which  will  prevent 
him  voting  for  it,  when  he  thinks  he  has? 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  object  to  what  he  thinks,  that  is  argu- 
mentative. 

1567  A.    He  can  vote  the  straight  party  ticket  by  all  the 


360  Frauds  by  Custodian  or  Judges. 

party  keys,  but  he  might  be  restricted  from  doing  it  by 
an  individual  key. 

Q.  Well,  the  other  day  a  man  voted  twenty-two  Dem- 
ocratic tickets  and  when  you  counted  them  up  they  found 
he  had  voted  only  twelve  t    A.    Yes. 

Q.  How  do  you  explain  that!  A.  Because  the  ma- 
chine was  not  properly  adjusted. 

Q.     That  depends  on  the  custodian!    A.    Certainly. 

1569  Q.  Third:  "that  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  a 
ticket  selected  in  part  from  the  nominees  of  one  party, 
and  in  part  from  the  nominees  of  all  other  parties,  and 
in  part  from  an  independent  nomination,  and  in  part 
from  persons  not  in  nomination  by  any  party  or  upon 
any  independent  ticket."    A.    Yes. 

Q.    Whether  or  not  it  can  be  made  to  do  that  ?   A.    Yes. 

Q.  It  can  also  be  adjusted  by  the  custodian  or  the 
judges  if  they  have  the  keys  to  the  lower  compartment  of 
the  machine,  so  that  that  cannot  be  done?    A.    Yes. 

Q.     As  was  demonstrated!    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  line  39,  "that  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  a 
written  or  printed  ballot  of  his  own  selection,  for  any 
person  for  any  office  which  he  may  desire,"  and  the  an- 
swer to  that  is  that  it  can  be  made  so  to  do  and  it  can  be 
made  not  to  do  so!    A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  line  40,  "that  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote 
for  all  candidates  for  whom  he  is  entitled  to  vote  and 
prevents  him  voting  for  any  candidate  for  any  office 
more  than  once,  unless  he  is  lawfully  entitled  to  cast  more 
than  one  vote  for  one  candidate,"  and  the  same  answer 
applies  to  that,  it  can  be  made  to  do  so  and  it  can  be  made 
not  to  do  so !    A.    If  properly  adjusted  it  can  do  so. 

Q.  And  that  it  prevents  the  elector  from  voting  for 
more  than  one  person  for  the  same  office  unless  he  is  en- 
titled to  vote  for  more  than  one  person  therefor,  and  in 

1570  that  event  permits  him  to  vote  for  as  many  persons  for 
that  office  as  he  is  by  law  entitled,  and  no  more!    A.    Yes. 

Q.  The  same  answer,  it  can  and  cannot  be  done?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  The  other  day,  Thursday  or  Friday,  you  showed 
that  he  could  vote  a  straight  party  ticket,  and  on  the 
same  ticket,  at  the  same  time,  give  a  candidate  two  votes? 
A.     Yes,  any  individual  candidate. 

Q.  Line  49:  "and  that  such  machine  will  register  cor- 
rectly by  means  of  exact  counters,  every  vote  cast  for  the 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  361 

regular  tickets  thereon."  That  depends  on  the  custo- 
dians and  the  judges,  if  he  has  the  keys,  does  it  not?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  "And  has  the  capacity  to  contain  the  tickets  of 
seven  poHtical  parties,  with  the  names  of  all  the  candi- 
dates thereon,  together  with  all  the  propositions  to  be 
voted  on,  except  that  it  may  be  so  constructed  that  the 
names  of  all  candidates  for  presidential  electors  will  not 
occur  thereon,  but  in  lieu  thereof,  one  ballot  label  in  each 
party  or  row  shall  contain  only  the  words  'presidential 
elector'?"    A.    Yes. 

Q.  I  suppose  that  depends  on  the  wav  it  is  adjusted'? 
A.    Yes. 

Q.  On  line  56:  "that  all  votes  cast  on  the  machine  on 
a  regular  ballot  or  ballots  shall  be  registered!"    A.    Yes. 

Q.  The  custodian  can  prevent  their  registering?  A. 
He  can. 

Q.  And  the  voter  can  by  these  rubber-bands  and  the 
metal  instruments  that  they  have  placed  on  the  machine, 
and  also  the  judge  can,  under  ordinary  conditions,  pre- 
vent that  machine  voting  on  certain  matters  ?  A.  On  the 
propositions. 

Q.    On  the  propositions?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  line  57 :  "  that  voters  may,  by  means  of  irregu- 
lar ballots,  or  otherwise  vote  for  any  person  for  any  of-, 
fice,  although  such  person  may  not  have  been  nominated 
by  any  party  and  his  name  may  not  appear  on  such  ma- 
chine." That  depends  on  the  judges  or  on  the  custo- 
dian?   A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  on  the  voter,  whether  he  moves  the  paper 
through  the  slots  or  shutters?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Line  59:  "that  when  a  vote  is  cast  for  any  person 
for  any  such  office  when  his  name  does  not  appear  on  the 
machine  for  the  same  office."  A.  Yes. 
1571  Q.  Can  that  be  prevented?  A.  I  suppose  the  only 
way  to  prevent  that  would  be  to  have  the  name  written 
in,  not  counted. 

Q.  But  he  can  vote  into  the  same —  A.  He  can  write 
it  on. 

Q.  He  can  write  it  on?  A.  That  depends  on  the 
judges.  _ 

Q.  Line  62:  "That  each  elector  can  understandingly 
and  within  the  period  of  one  minute,  cast  his  vote  for  all 
the  candidates  of  his  choice";  that  depends  on  the  elec- 


362  Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy. 

tors,  the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that,  hasn't  it?    A. 
Yes. 

Q.  That  in  case  the  machine  is  so  constructed  that  the 
candidates  for  presidential  electors  of  any  party  can  be 

1572  voted  for  only  by  voting  for  the  ballot  label,  containing 
the  words  "presidential  electors,"  by  voting  an  irregu- 
lar ticket  as  hereinafter  defined  the  elector  may  vote  for 
any  person  or  persons  he  may  choose  for  presidential 
electors!"    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Further  "that  the  machine  is  provided  with  a  lock 
or  locks  by  the  use  of  which  any  movement  of  the  voting 
or  registering  mechanism  is  absolutely  prevented  so  that 
it  cannot  be  tampered  with  or  manipulated  for  any  fraud- 
ulent purpose.    A.    I  think  they  can. 

Q.    By  the  judges  or  custodian?    A.    Yes. 

1573  Q.  Can  they  be  manipulated  by  the  judges  or  custo- 
dian for  fraudulent  purposes?    A.    Yes,  they  can. 

Q.  "That  the  machine  is  susceptible  of  being  closed 
during  the  progress  of  the  voting  so  that  no  person  can 
be  or  know  the  number  of  the  votes  registered  for  any 
candidate?"    A.    Yes. 

Q.    It  is  susceptible.    A.    Yes. 

Q.  It  is  also  susceptible  of  being  opened,  isn't  it,  so 
that  they  can  see  the  progress  of  the  vote  ?    A.    Yes. 


1574  Relative  to  questions  asked  by  Judge  McEwen  about 
transportation,  witness  has  considered  them  all  in  his 
examination  and  reported  that  the  problem  of  transpor- 
tation was  an  objection  to  the  voting  machine. 

1575  Witness  remembers  the  frauds  refei-red  to  in  the  grand 
jury  report  of  1908  and  thinks  that  was  collusion  among 
those  in  charge  of  the  voting  machines.  They  could  do 
all  that  was  done  in  the  hearing  room  the  other  ray. 

1576  If  the  judges  made  affidavit  in  case  of  a  blind  vote, 
as  was  suggested,  there  would  be  no  means  of  identifica- 
tion of  the  vote  upon  the  machine,  except  that  the  public 
counter  would  not  correspond  with  the  individual  counter. 

1577  "While  a  machine  could  not  eliminate  the  human  ele- 
ment from  voting  it  could  restrict  it  more  than  the  Em- 
pire machine  does.  It  could  add  the  vote  mechanically 
and  accurately,  and  to  that  extent  eliminate  the  human 
element. 

If  the  locks  were  encased  so  they  could  not  be  reached 


Advantages  of  "Printing"  Machines.  363 

during  voting  hours  that  would  eliminate  the  human  ele- 
ment. There  are  machines  that  do  this.  Witness  thinks 
the  International  machine  does  it. 

Placing  a  printed  impression  of  the  votes  on  the  ma- 
chine would  eliminate  another  human  element. 

1578  The  method  of  operating  the  counters  in  the  Empire 
machine  would  have  to  be  changed  to  allow  the  attach- 
ment of  a  party-lever  which  would  necessitate  the  reor- 
ganizing of  the  whole  machine. 

The  setting  of  the  machine  at  999  and  the  casting  of 
an  experimental  vote  by  the  ,iudges  would  eliminate  a 
good  deal  of  trouble  and  be  a  check  upon  the  custodian. 

It  is  a  decided  disadvantage  in  the  voting  machine  if 
they  permit  the  voter  to  monopolize  the  machine  while  he 
is  making  up  his  mind. 

1579  A  machine  so  designed  as  to  make  the  ballot  mechanism 
separate  from  the  recording  mechanism  would  make  it 
possible  for  several  voters  to  prepare  their  ballots  at 
the  same  time  as  in  the  Australian  ballot  system.  Wit- 
ness understands  that  such  a  machine  is  being  brought 
out. 

1580  In  answering  Judge  McEwen,  according  to  his  recol- 
lection to  the  effect  that  the  Empire  machine  was  the  best 
voting  machine  witness  had  seen,  witness  was  in  error. 
What  he  meant  to  say  was  that  it  was  the  best  of  its  type. 

The  rust  question  was  considered  by  the  witness  when 
acting  as  an  expert.  It  was  one  reason  why  he  suggested 
ordering  only  a  few  machines  at  a  time,  in  order  to  test 
them  on  this  question. 

1581  If  the  voter  voted  according  to  instructions  for  voting 
a  split  ticket  by  running  his  finger  along  the  keys  of  his 
own  party  after  voting  independently  outside  of  it,  the 
machine  ought  to  thoroughly  restrict  him  from  voting  the 
candidates  furthest  to  the  left  in  his  party  row.  These 
are  restricted  because,  with  the  vote  outside  of  his  party 
the  voter  has  used  up  his  space  before  he  reaches  them. 

1582  Witness  illustrates  this  on  the  voting  machine  by  voting 
3  outside  of  the  Democratic  party  and  then  voting  the 
Democratic  party  row,  and  is  restricted  from  voting  for 
the  three  County  Commissioners  on  the  left-hand  end  of 
the  Democratic  row ;  namely,  Peter  Bartzen,  Daniel  Mori- 
arity  and  John  Mahoney.  If  he  votes  two  outside  the 
Democratic  party  he  cannot  follow  the  instructions 
for  voting  and  vote  for  Moriarity  and  Bartzen.    If  he 


364        Defects  of  Split  Voting  on  Empire  Machine. 

votes  for  one  outside  the  Democratic  party  he  cannot  vote 
for  Bartzen.  The  man  farthest  to  the  right  would  be 
given  an  advantage  by  the  voting  machine  when  voted 
according  to  instructions. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Yes,  but  the  instructions  say  that  the 
party  line  is  to  be  pulled  first  and  your  scratches  after- 
wards." 

1585  Witness  has  not  found  any  means  of  restricting  the 
party  key  at  the  end  of  the  independent  row  as  the  ma- 
chine is  constructed. 

Afternoon  Session. 
Tuesday,  August  5, 1913. 

CiARENCE  E.  Depuy  resumes  stand: 

Re-direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen  Continued. 

1586  Witness  has  read  instructions  regarding  voting  sent 
out  by  Election  Commissioners  and  he  understands  they 
instruct  the  voter  first  to  split  the  ticket  and  then  vote 
the  remainder  of  the  ticket  by  running  his  finger  over 
the  keys  from  left  to  right. 

Re-cross  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

It  makes  a  difference  in  group  voting,  in  voting  a  split 
ticket,  w^hether  the  voter  votes  the  split  first  and  after- 
wards the  straight  part  of  his  ticket  or  vice  versa. 

1587  Witness  can  probably  vote  faster  on  a  machine  than 
with  the  Australian  ballot. 

The  human  element  cannot  be  eliminated  by  the  opera- 
tion of  voting  machines. 

1589  After  it  is  adjusted  correctly  by  the  custodian  the  ma- 
chine will  operate  correctly  as  long  as  it  is  adjusted  cor- 
rectly. 

1590  Witness  has  not  seen  a  better  machine  than  the  Em- 
pire nor  one  so  good. 

1591  There  is  not  the  same  opportunity  to  mark  ballots  on 
the  voting  machine  as  in  the  ballot  box. 

The  ballots  cannot  be  falsified  on  a  voting  machine  by 
short  pencilling.  There  would  be  no  opportunity  for 
using  a  device  having  a  rubber  stamp  on  the  thumb. 

Witness  thinks  a  count  on  the  voting  machine  would 


Empire  Too  Much  Subject  to  "Human  Element."     365 

be  collected  within  an  hour;  does  not  know  how  long  it 
takes. 

1594  Witness  knows  that  under  the  Australian  ballot  system 
the  counts  were  very  much  delayed  in  some  precincts. 
"Witness  has  heard  that  sometimes  the  count  is  held  back 
fraudulently  imtil  it  is  known  how  many  votes  are  needed. 

1595  In  witness'  answer  to  Governor  Deneen  concerning 
frauds  mentioned  in  the  grand  jury  report  of  1908  and 
that  these  could  not  be  corrected  by  the  voting  machine, 
w-itness  does  not  take  into  account  frauds  committed  by 
holding  back  the  returns  and  in  that  respect  his  answer 
needs  qualification. 

Re-re-direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  recalls  the  provision  of  the  law  requiring  the 
filing  of  nomination  papers  30  days  before  election.  The 
custodian  would  have  this  30  days  to  "rig  up  the  ma- 
chine. ' ' 

1596  Under  the  Australian  ballot  system  frauds  may  be  com- 
mitted by  judges  and  clerks,  policemen  and  workmen 
within  a  few  hours  after  the  polls  are  closed.  With  a 
machine  it  might  be  done  by  the  custodian  along  within 
the  30  days  preceding  election. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  The  last  day  for  the  withdrawal  of 
candidates  is  13  days  before  election;  then  the  ballots 
have  to  be  printed  still." 

1597  "The  Witness.  The  restrictive  mechanism  is  what 
ought  to  be  used." 

"Mr.  Deneen.  It  is  page  3  and  the  line  is  67;  we  will 
see  what  the  law  says  about  the  human  element.  I  will 
read  it;  this  is  one  of  the  points  it  must  have:  'That 
the  machine  is  provided  with  a  lock  or  locks  by  the  use 
of  which  any  movement  of  the  voting  or  registering 
mechanism  is  absolutely  prevented,  so  that  it  cannot  be 
tampered  with  or  manipulated  for  any  fraudulent  pur- 
pose.'   That  is  one  test,  isn't  it? 

"A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  It  does  not  meet  that  test,  does  it?  A.  No,  it 
does  not." 

1598  The  test  of  the  voting  machine  is  how  far  it  eliminates 
the  human  element.  That  is  why  witness  advocated  the 
party-lever;  and  advocated  setting  these  locks  in  auto- 


366  Suggested  Improvements. 

matic  cases  and  printing  the  ticket  in  the  morning  so  as 
to  have  a  check  on  the  custodian. 

Re-re-cross  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

1599  Witness  thinks  that  better  locks  could  be  provided  than 
the  ones  in  use  on  the  Empire  machine. 

1600  A  lock  with  a  special  form  of  blank  would  be  an  im- 
provement. Another  improvement  would  be  a  limited 
number  of  inspections  by  the  judges. 

1600-1607  The  following  statutory  provision  is  read  to  the 
witness:  "That  the  machine  is  provided  with  a  lock  or 
locks  by  the  use  of  which  any  movement  of  the  voting  or 
registering  mechanism  is  absolutely  prevented  so  that 
it  cannot  be  tampered  with  or  manipulated  for  any  fraud- 
ulent purpose,"  and  is  asked  whether  there  is  a  lock 
made  that  will  absolutely  prevent  tampering  with  it  for 
a  good  or  a  bad  purpose.  Witness  answers:  "I  never 
heard  of  any." 

1608  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

The  International  machine  has  an  automatic  encased 
lock. 

"A.  As  I  understand  their  mechanism  is  so  arranged 
that  the  lock  cannot  be  opened  twice  after  it  is  closed 
until  another  compartment  has  been  opened.  That  is  the 
compartment  closed  by  the  lock  can  be  opened  twice  and 
then  in  order  to  open  it  again  another  compartment  has 
to  be  opened  first,  which  is  done  by  an  entirely  different 
lock." 

1609  As  the  witness  understands,  the  International  machine, 
a  printed  ballot  is  taken  off  before  six  o'clock  the  morn- 
ing of  the  election  day  and  after  the  lever  is  put  on  there 
is  no  possible  way  to  get  into  the  machine.  After  four 
o'clock  the  lever  is  taken  oif  and  another  impression 
taken.    The  two  impressions  are  a  check  on  each  other. 


Testimony  of  G.  0.  Olson.  367 

1610  George  0,  Olson: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Lives  at  5919  Ohio  street.  Is  a  manufacturer  of  spe- 
cial machinery,  dies,  tools  and  stampings.    Has  been  jjresi- 

1611  dent  of  the  Fort  Dearborn  Manufacturing  Company  for 
the  last  18  years. 

Witness  has  been  a  machinist  for  36  years.  Has  in- 
spected voting  machines  in  the  City  of  Chicago  for  the 
old  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  four  times.  Ex- 
aminations were  made  at  the  same  time  by  Professor 
DePuy,  Professor  Leutweiler  and  Mr.  Breckenridge  the 
first  time. 

A  report  of  the  examinations  was  filed  with  the  Election 
Commissioners. 

Witness  has  been  employed  by  the  Legislative  Com- 
mittee to  examine  voting  machines  and  helped  prepare 
the  statement  regarding  the  mechanism  of  the  machine,  its 
material,  and  so  forth,  which  was  read  into  evidence  in 
the  form  of  question  and  answer  during  the  examination 
of  Professor  DePuy. 

1613  A  voter  can  commit  a  fraud  upon  the  voting  machine 
while  concealed  by  the  curtain. 

He  can  prevent  keys  from  being  worked  by  using  a 
wire  clip  which  can  be  placed  on  the  machine  to  obstruct 
voting. 

The  clip  is  painted  the  same  color  as  the  face  of  the 
machine  to  conceal  it  from  the  voter  who  is  voting  accord- 
ing to  instructions  sent  out  by  the  Election  Board  for 
voting  a  mixed  ticket. 

1614  A  piece  of  angle  steel  may  be  placed  in  the  slide  or 
shutter  for  irregular  voting  which  prevents  the  move- 
ment of  the  slide  for  voting  purposes.  Its  edge  only  is 
presented  to  the  voter  and  it  is  knife-edged  and  not  dis- 
coverable. 

1615  A  rubber  band  can  be  placed  on  a  key  of  the  machine 
in  such  a  way  that  when  the  voter  votes  according  to  in- 
structions for  voting  a  split  ticket  the  key  will  be  re- 
turned to  its  place  before  the  vote  lever  is  pulled  and 
will  not  register  a  vote. 

A  voting  key  must  be  pulled  down  11/32  in  order  to 


368  Frauds  Possible  on  Empire  Machine. 

register  a  vote.    If  it  is  pulled  down  only  9/32  it  will  not 
register  and  the  vote  will  be  lost. 

1616  The  judges  have  access  to  the  counters  and  by  looking 
at  them  before  and  after  a  voter  votes  can  tell  how  he 
voted. 

By  lifting  the  ratchet  controlling  the  irregular  paper 
roller  and  thus  permitting  the  voter  to  move  the  inde- 
pendent paper  roller  ahead  And  vote  more  than  once  he 
may  write  in  the  name  of  an  independent  candidate  more 
than  once  upon  it. 

The  returns  must  be  read  from  the  back  of  the  ma- 
chine by  the  judges  and  put  down  by  the  clerks  and  their 
integrity  depends  upon  accurate  and  correct  reading. 

The  custodian  can  adjust  the  counters  so  that  they 
will  show  a  vote  different  from  that  taken  during  the 
election. 

1617  This  can  be  done  by  putting  zeros  on  the  counter  con- 
cealing the  counter  figures. 

Any  number  of  votes  short  of  999  can  be  given  to  a 
candidate  or  taken  away.  The  judge  can  manipulate  the 
question  lockout  so  that  the  voter  can  vote  regardless 
of  the  right  to  do  so. 

1618  The  party-key  at  the  end  of  the  row  for  independent 
candidates  cannot  be  locked  out  as  the  machine  is  con- 
structed. It  can  be  done  by  hooks  inside  of  the  machine 
fastening  the  independent  keys   down. 

The  custodian  can  arrange  the  machine  so  tliat  the 
voter  can  vote  a  straight  ticket  and  also  vote  an  indi- 
vidual candidate  of  the  same  party. 

1619  The  custodian  can  do  this  in  a  few  seconds. 
Witness  believes  that  custodian  can  adjust  the  cumu- 
lative voting  device  so  that  the  voter  can  vote  6  votes 
for  member  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  5,  or  any  num- 
ber. The  same  thing  can  be  done  by  the  judges,  clerks, 
or  anybody  who  has  access  to  the  keys  of  the  lower  com- 
partment. 

1620  The  judge  of  election  can  permit  a  voter  to  vote  at' 
a  primary  election  for  candidates  of  all  parties  or  for 
other  parties  than  that  with  which  he  is  affiliated. 

Witnes  examined  the  machine  at  the  Hotel  La  Salle. 
A  primary  ticket  in  this  election  district  cannot  be 
placed  on  the  Empire  machine. 

1621  It  is  too  large.  At  the  last  primary  there  were  46  or 
48  Republican  candidates  for  County  Commissioner.  This 


Advantages  of  Party  Lever.  369 

■would  be  four  rows  on  the  voting  machine  and  require 
the  same  space  for  each  party  on  the  machine.  This  can- 
not be  done  on  a  9-party,  70-key  machine  unless  it  is 
altered. 

Witness  thinks  the  party-lever  of  great  advantage  in 
a  voting  machine.  It  saves  time  and  adds  the  vote. 
1623  The  party-lever  cannot  be  applied  to  the  Empire  ma- 
chine without  redesigning  the  whole  machine  and  estab- 
lishing a  connection  between  the  keys  and  the  party 
bar. 

Since  last  Friday  the  witness  has  prepared  an  addi- 
tional obstacle  that  can  be  placed  on  the  machine  to  pre- 
vent voting  for  one  candidate. 

(Here  the  witness,  the  Committee  and  the  counsel  go 
to  the  voting  machine.) 

(Witness  places  his  device  upon  the  voting  machine 
and  the  Committee  and  counsel  search  for  it.) 

1625  "Mr.  Dexeen.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mittee to  the  fact  that  Judge  McEwen's  minute  is  up; 
he  has  been  two  minutes  looking  for  it. 

"Mr.  McEwEx.    Well,  just  a  second  and  I  will  find  it. 

1626  The  device  was  fixed  on  key  27-D  which  would  not  go 
down.  It  is  a  small  block  of  metal  5/32  of  an  inch  thick 
and  5/16  of  an  inch  wide  and  pierced  with  a  1/32-inch 
hole  through  which  a  piece  of  piano  wire  7/32  of  an 

1628  inch  long  is  put.  The  block  simply  finds  the  natural 
position  in  the  channel  on  the  face  of  the  machine  and 
the  wire  extends  under  the  key  and  prevents  it  from 
going  down.    It  is  not  readily  seen. 

1629  It  took  witness  40  seconds  to  vote  and  put  the  obstacle 
on  the  machine  the  first  time.     Both  the  block  and  the 

1630  wire  are  black.  Enamel  should  be  put  on  the  wire. 
The  witness  used  lampblack. 

The  voting  machine  weighed  1120  pounds  in  the  case. 
Would  not  be  hard  to  handle,  but  hard  to  handle  at  the 
polling  place.     That  would  be  very  difficult. 

1632  As  far  as  witness  knows  the  instructions  to  voters 
were  to  vote  from  right  to  left,  "pulling  your  fingers 
along  the  keys." 

1633  Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  does  not  know  about  the  difficulty  of  handling 
the  machine  in  the  warehouse.    There  will  be  no  trouble 


370  Former  Report  on  Empire  Machine. 

about  handling  it  except  as  to  expense.  Witness  does 
not  think  the  machine  hard  to  handle  when  in  the  box, 
but  that  it  is  when  outside  the  box.  Witness  presumes 
the  box  is  on  rollers. 

1635  Witness  thinks  that  5  men  would  be  required  to  lift 
up  the  machine  bodily  in  order  to  place  the  legs  under 
it ;  four  to  lift  and  one  to  place  the  legs.  Four  men  might 
do  it  by  lifting  up  one  end  at  a  time,  or  possibly  three 
men  if  they  were  experienced. 

1636  Witness  has  never  seen  a  machine  lifted;  one  experi- 
enced man  and  two  without  experience  might  put  the  ma- 
chine in  place  by  lifting  one  end  at  a  time. 

Witness  examined  the  Empire  machine  and  made  a 
report  in  1910,  also  in  1909.  As  to  material,  it  is  pretty 
good,  but  might  be  improved  upon.  Witness  has  come 
to  this  opinion  because  "experience  has  been  telling  me 
that  there  has  been  improvement  along  that  line." 

The  workmanship  was  first  class  in  1910.  The  Empire 
machine  could  be  improved  by  using  more  non-corrosive 
metal. 

1638  Witness  found  rust  spots  in  the  lower  compartment. 
The  metal  at  that  point  is  either  not  shererdized  or  is 
rusted.  Shererdizing  will  rust.  Witness  saw  rust  on  the 
channel  bar;  there  were  more  than  half  a  dozen  rust 
spots. 

1639  Witness  thinks  the  rust  spots  averaged  about  5/8  of 
an  inch  in  diameter.  Witness  saw  the  same  machine  as 
Professor  Depuy. 

Witness  has  seen  either  a  rust  spot  or  a  spot  not 
shererdized  on  the  working  parts  of  the  machine. 

1640  Metal  not  shererdized  is  black  or  white  or  gray. 
Rust  spots  might  be  pretty  serious. 

"Q.  You  say  in  1910  the  Empire  used — I  will  read 
from  the  report  here,  to  see  whether  you  recognize  the 
Empire,  'The  material  used  in  the  construction  of  this 
machine  could  not  be,  in  my  opinion,  improved  upon. 

1641  The  workmanship  is  first  class.  I  wish  to  call  especial 
attention  to  the  high  grade  of  work  on  the  counters  and 
the  counter-holders,  which  is,  in  my  opinion,  very  high 
grade  work.'  Is  that  true  in  1910?  A.  True  as  to  the 
workmanship,  true  as  to  the  material  at  that  time,  as  far 
as  my  knowledge  went  at  that  time. 

"Q.  Is  it  true  altogether  in  1910?  A.  That  was  my 
opinion  at  that  time. 


Testimony  of  G.  0.  Olson.  371 

"Q.  Do  you  think  so  now?  A.  Not  as  to  the  material 
no. 

"Q.  On  account  of  this  piece  of  metal  there  that  you 
cannot  tell  whether  it  is  not  shererdized  or  whether  it  is 
rusted?    A.    No,  sir. 

"Q.  On  account  of  those  little  spots?  A.  No,  sir.  I 
will  say  I  was  of  the  opinion  at  the  time  the  shererdizing 
was  rust-proof,  but  I  have  changed  my  mind. 

"Q.  Is  it  recognized  as  a  standard  method  of  pre- 
venting rust?    A.    One  of  the  methods,  yes. 

1642  Shererdizing  is  a  good  method  of  preventing  rust.  "But 
I  think  any  method  of  preventing  rust  the  parts  have  got 
to  be  in  a  place  of  equal  temperature  to  keep  that  rust 
from  showing  or  rather  to  keep  the  rust  away." 

"Q.  You  also,  in  your  report  of  1910  concerning  the 
Empire  machine,  say  this  machine  seems  to  be  designed 
and  built  with  the  sole  idea  of  complying  with  the  Illi- 
nois law,  and  they  have  succeeded,  but  they  have  lost 
sight  of  the  many  problems  confronting  a  large  city, 
such  as  transportation,  storage  and  repair.  The  machine 
is  entirely  too  heavy  and  composed  of  too  many  parts 
and  I  consider  it  unwise  to  purchase  any  machine  of  this 
type  at  the  present  time  as  I  am  convinced  we  can  look 
for  great  improvement  iti  the  near  future, — in  the  matter 
of  improvement, — in  the  near  future.  Did  you  mean  a 
lightening  of  the  machine,  did  you?  A.  Well,  that  is 
one  thing,  lightening? 

1643  "A.  There  has  not  been  any  advancement  that  I  can 
see,  in  voting  machines  since  1907,  except  in  a  few  de- 
tails. 

"Q.  The  defects  that  were  discovered  in  1907,  1908, 
1909  and  1910  have  been  corrected,  haven't  they?  A. 
They  have  been  corrected,  because  the  workmanship  has 
been  improved." 

Witness  thinks  the  party-key  very  unsatisfactory  to 
the  voter  because  he  cannot  see  the  keys  go  down  for  the 
candidates  for  whom  he  votes. 

1644  This  objection  does  not  exist  as  to  the  keys  for  indi- 
vidual candidates. 

Witness  thinks  the  party-key  should  be  changed  to  the 
party-lever. 

Witness  does  not  recall  any  difficulty  about  using  the 
party-lever  with  the  cumulative  voting  device. 

Four  provisions  have  to  be  made  by  the  cumulative 


372  Testimony  of  G.  0.  Olson. 

voting  device  for  each  candidate  for  the  General  Assem- 
bly; 1  vote,  1  1/2  votes,  2  votes  and  3  votes. 

For  three  candidates  for  the  General  Assembly  12  lines 
Avould  be  required. 

1646  Witness  cannot  give  an  idea  of  the  diflSculty  of  ad- 
justing a  party-lever  to  voting  machines  with  a  cumu- 
lative voting  device,  but  thinks  it  could  be  done. 

Witness  has  done  very  little  designing  of  machinery. 

1647  The  cumulative  voting  device  on  the  Empire  machine 
seems  a  good  device.  Witness'  report  of  1910  said  there 
was  a  slight  defect  in  the  cumulative  voting  device  on  the 
Empire  machine.    Witness  does  not  find  any  defect  now. 

In  the  1910  report  witness  thought  the  grouping  device 
on  the  Empire  machine  very  good.    Thinks  so  still. 

Witness  thought  in  1910  the  machine  should  be  built 
so  as  to  adjust  itself  to  unlevel  floors  by  some  raising 
and  lowering  device.     Thinks  so  still. 

1648  Witness'  report  in  1910  stated,  "The  ballot  lock  is 
simple  and  effective,  but  the  bar  at  the  right  end  which 
holds  the  strips  into  place  should  have  a  key  lock.  The 
resetting  device  on  this  machine  is  to  be  commended  for 
its  simplicity.    The  alignment  of  the  keys  is  good." 

1649  The  machine  had  a  seal  in  place  of  a  lock  recommended. 
Witness  is  of  the  same  opinion  now  as  to  the  resetting 
device  and  alignment  of  keys.  Witness  would  limit  the 
possible  inspection  of  machine  and  witness  thinks  a  100- 
key  machine  about  the  limit. 

Witness  does  not  think  the  principle  of  the  machine 
could  be  applied  to  a  200-key  machine. 

1650  ' '  Q.  You  think  that  this  machine  is  very  secure  against 
manipulation  as  to  the  counters  which  cannot  be  moved 
without  opening  the  lower  doors,  and  as  I  understand, 
the  keys  to  this  door  are  held  by  the  custodian,  you 
thought  it  was  a  pretty  secure  machine  at  that  time, 
didn't  you?  A.  At  that  time,  yes;  I  don't  know  whether 
it  is  the  same  machine  or  not." 

Witness'  report  to  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners in  1910  states:  "At  your  request,  I  examined  the 
Empire  voting  machine  installed  in  your  office." 

Witness  does  not  know  Avhether  that  was  the  same  ma- 
chine as  the  present  Empire  machine  or  not.  It  bore 
the  name-plate  of  the  Empire  Company. 

1651  The  machine  was  very  similar  to  this. 

The  report  for  1910  commended  the  device  for  primary 


Empire  Machine  Not  Large  Enough  for  Chicago.      373 

elections,  but  witness  thinks  now  it  is  not  large  enough 
for  primary  elections  in  Chicago. 

The  witness'  opinion  as  to  the  workmanship  remains 
the  same  as  in  1910.    It  is  practically  the  same. 

1653  Witness  has  changed  his  opinion  since  1910  so  far  as 
manipulating  or  restricting  of  keys  is  concerned.  Wit- 
ness had  not  seen  the  rubber  band  until  the  other  day. 
Had  heard  about  it,  but  did  not  know  how  it  was  put  on. 

The  witness  first  saw  wire  clips  about  two  weeks  ago. 

1654  W^itness  thinks  any  voting  machine  might  be  fixed. 

1655  It  would  take  about  half  a  minute  to  bore  the  hole  in 
the  little  block;  half  a  dozen  of  the  pins  were  made  by  a 
mechanic  in  half  an  hour. 

1656  Witness  does  not  know  how  long  it  would  take  a  voter 
to  find  this  lock  and  pin  device.  He  would  know  the  key 
was  fastened  as  soon  as  he  undertook  to  vote. 

Witness  thinks  putting  in  wedges,  wire  clips,  and  rub- 
ber bands  constitute  an  objection  to  the  machine.  A  ma- 
chine that  permits  it  should  be  rejected. 

The  voting  machine  should  be  constructed  along  lines 
which  would  not  permit  that  to  be  done. 

There  should  not  be  the  channels  and  openings  be- 
tween the  keys  as  on  the  Empire  machine. 

1657  If  you  have  keys  to  move  some  space  is  necessary,  but 
not  enough  to  permit  of  putting  in  a  wedge. 

To  put  a  ballot  on  a  voting  machine  requires  some 
space  to  allow  the  key  to  pass  over  the  face  of  the  ballot. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  have  a  channel  5/32  of  an  inch  deep. 

1658  Witness  would  have  the  channel  or  groove  removed. 
Witness  does  not  believe  any  of  the  machines  he  has 
examined  had  the  deep  channel  under  the  keys. 

The  possibility  of  wedges  and  wires  did  not  occur  to 
him  when  examining  the  machines  in  other  years. 

Witness  has  examined  United  States  Standard  and 
Columbia  voting  machines,  but  up  to  the  present  year 
has  never  considered  the  question  of  restricting  devices, 
rubber  bands,  clips  or  wedges. 

1659  Witness  has  seen  a  voting  machine  that  printed;  the 
International.  It  did  not  ink  the  counters;  a  typewriter 
ribbon  was  used.  Never  heard  that  the  International 
was  liable  to  get  wet. 

1661  Witness  examined  the  International  machine  in  1907. 
Witness  cannot  say  whether  a  machine  with  a  party-lever 
is  liable  to  get  out  of  order,  to  gum  and  stick.  In  his  re- 
port on  the  International  in  1907  witness  said: 


374  Testimony  of  G.  0.  Olson. 

"I  am  satisfied  if  it  was  stored  for  6  months  you  could 
not  move  tlie  party-lever  as  there  would  be  great  liability 
that  the  slot  would  gum  up  and  stick." 

Witness  does  not  know  whether  a  rubber  stamp  could 
be  placed  over  the  counter  on  an  International  machine 
and  make  a  false  printing. 

1662  Witness  does  not  think  this  could  be  done. 
Witness  saw  Professor  Depuy  move  the  paper  roll. 

In  doing  it  he  does  not  take  up  the  slack  in  the  paper,  but 
makes  the  slack. 

1663  Witness  does  not  think  there  is  any  limit  to  the  amount 
the  paper  can  be  moved,  but  that  the  roll  goes  round  and 
round. 

A  voter  locked  out  from  the  row  he  was  entitled  to  vote 
would  have  no  difficulty  in  discovering  it. 

1664  In  all  the  particulars  testified  to  by  Professor  DePuy, 
the  restricting  device,  the  question  lockout,  the  party-key 
on  the  Independent  candidates,  the  false  paper  marks  on 
the  counters  and  so  forth,  the  machine  will  do  what  it  is 
set  to  do.  The  machine  is  not  set  properly  because  the  in- 
dependent slides  do  not  stay  up  when  they  are  raised  up. 

1665  Especially  when  the  voter,  wnth  a  pencil  in  his  hand,  had 
to  look  for  the  slide  the  second  time.  It  does  not  prevent 
the  voter  from  voting  when  he  wants  to. 

"Q.  Then  I  will  ask  you  the  question  generally  with 
regard  to  all  of  these  matters :  Will  the  machine  do  what 
it  is  set  to  dol    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  And  express  the  will  of  the  voter  and  count  it  or 
show  it  on  the  counters,  and  if  the  men  surrounding  the 
machine  do  their  duty  with  regard  to  reporting  it  you 
will  have  a  correct  election  reporting?    A.    Yes,  sir." 

If  the  custodian's  key  remains  in  his  possession  and  so 
the  judges  or  individuals  cannot  get  it  the  machine  is  safe 
in  the  polling  place  in  the  hands  of  the  judges.  That  is, 
they  cannot  do  anything  that  the  voter  cannot  readily  dis- 
cover and  protest  against,  except  in  the  points  mentioned, 
which  the  judges  can  do,  namely,  the  question  lock-out, 
the  primary  lock-out  and  looking  at  the  register. 

All  of  these  must  be  done  in  the  presence  of  witnesses. 

In  order  to  open  a  machine  in  the  rear  it  is  necessary 
to  have  the  voting-lever  in  regular  position  and  this  stops 

the  voting. 

1666  "Q.  Do  vou  think  that  the  voting  machine  could  be  so 
perfect  that  it  will  not  permit  the  restricting  of  keys, 


The  Independent  Paper  Roll.  375 

tliat  it  will  not  permit  the  unlocking  of  the  rear  door  to 
allow  that  roll  to  be  rolled,  that  is,  it  will  not — that  it 
must  be  so  perfect  that  the  locks  cannot  be  fixed  under 
any  circumstances,  and  that  the  custodian  cannot  set  it 

1667  improperly!     A.     Well,  there  are  a  lot  of  things  that 
could  be  done  that  are  not  done." 

Witness  does  not  think  that  a  machine  should  be  re- 
jected solely  because  keys  may  be  restricted;  that  is  one 
reason.  Or,  because  a  custodian  may  set  it  improperly, 
or  because  the  custodian's  keys  may  be  stolen  and  fall 
into  the  hands  of  dishonest  judges  or  other  persons. 

1668  Witness  thinks  the  machine  from  which  you  cannot 
take  a  print  before  and  after  election  should  be  rejected. 

Witness  would  not  accept  a  machine  with  the  Empire's 
device  for  controlling  the  Independent  paper  roll.    Wit- 
ness thinks  the  construction  very  foolish. 
1671     The  Committee,  counsel  and  witness  go  to  the  machine 
to  enable  the  witness  to  test  the  paper  roll. 

The  witness  moves  up  the  paper  roll  permitting  Mr. 
Hough  to  vote  twice  for  Independent  candidates  and 
moved  it  about  half  a  space  farther. 


VOLUME  XVIII. 


I 


Morning  Session. 
Wednesday,  August  6,  1913. 

1673  Geobge  0.  Olson  resumed  the  stand : 

Further  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEtven. 

1674  After  making  the  experiment  of  last  evening  the  wit- 
ness still  thinks  the  paper  rolls  device  objectionable.  He 
would  not  reject  the  machine  because  of  his  ability  to 
move  the  paper  roll,  but  would  have  the  device  arranged 
so  that  the  pawl  engaging  the  ratchet  could  not  be  re- 
moved. 

To  loosen  the  ratchet  should  require  something  more 
than  just  turning  it  over. 

1675  The  slack  in  the  paper  roll  produced  by  witness  came 
from  the  paper  witness  forced  around  not  from  the  paper 
roll. 


376   Primary  Lever  and  Proposition  Lockout  Too  Small. 

"Q.  Now,  briefly  stating  that  experiment,  you  went 
to  the  machine  and  took  the  keys  to  the  machine  and 
turned  the  lock  on  the  righthand,  locking  the  front  of 

1676  the  machine,  went  to  the  rear,  opened  the  top  door,  dis- 
engaged the  pawl  at  what  is  the  left  side  facing  the 
machine,  and  went  back  and  unlocked  the  voting  lock  on 
the  right  end  of  the  machine,  opened  the  lock,  holding  the 
lever,  threw  it  over  into  voting  position,  raised  the  shut- 
ters, one  at  the  left  end  and  one  towards  the  right  end 
and  then  by  working  your  fingers  in  the  opening  on  the 
paper  pressed  it  down  and  succeeded  in  pressing  it,  ad- 
vancing it  about  two  spaces  and  a  half,  is  that  a  correct 
statement!    A.    Yes,  sir." 

If  the  ratchet  was  engaged  in  the  pawl  and  the  paper 
•  was  fastened  to  the  roller,  you  couldn't  move  the  roller 
around  or  unroll  the  paper. 

1677  If  the  machine  is  restricted  properly  by  the  custodian 
the  judge  cannot  move  the  primary  lever  to  zero. 

1678  Before  the  voting-lever  is  moved  by  the  voter  the  judge 
can  move  the  primary-lever  to  any  point  the  judge  de- 
sires. The  judge  would  not  misset  the  primary  lever  for 
the  intelligent,  honest  vote. 

1679  If  the  judge  put  the  primary  lever  on  the  Democratic 
point  a  voter  would  be  shut  off  from  voting  the  Repub- 
lican primary  ticket. 

1680  Witness  thinks  the  judge  has  a  greater  opportunity  for 
fraudulent  manipulation  of  the  proposition  lock-out  than 
on  the  primary  lever,  as  the  machine  is  at  present  con- 
structed, because  to  lock-out  on  propositions  the  judge 
must  go  around  to  the  other  end  of  the  machine. 

The  witness  thinks  the  primary  lever  and  the  proposi- 
tion lock-out  are  too  small.  They  should  be  so  that  they 
could  not  be  covered  by  the  hand. 

If  the  primary-lever  and  lock-out  can  be  seen  there  is 
no  question  of  fraud. 

1681  Witness  thinks  the  voter  should  be  able  to  set  the  ma- 
chine for  his  own  party  on  primary  elections. 

Mr.  McBwen  suggests  that  the  law  would  have  to  be 
changed  in  order  to  let  the  voter  do  that. 

Witness  does  not  think  the  present  design  of  voting 
machines  in  general  is  correct.  Witness  thinks  the  idea 
of  a  rotary  machine  would  be  feasible. 

1682  Witness  has  never  seen  one.  The  keys  on  the  Empire 
machine  could  not  be  tampered  with  so  readily  if  the  pa- 


Testimony  of  G.  0.  Olson.  377 

per  in  the  machine  had  a  smooth  surface.  The  ballot 
could  then  be  fastened  on  in  some  other  way. 
1683  Witness  sees  no  reason  why  a  dial  could  not  be  devised 
to  show  what  ticket  a  voter  was  voting  on  a  primary  elec- 
tion, especially  if  it  were  set  where  the  challenger  could 
see  it. 

Witness  was  selected  four  times  to  examine  voting  ma- 
chines.   Witness  did  not  solicit  the  appointment. 

Witness  was  present  last  night  when  Mr.  Keiper,  Pat- 
ent Attorney  for  the  Empire  Company,  examined  the  ma- 
chine in  the  Hotel  La  Salle. 

1685  Also  Mr.  Hough,  expert  for  the  Election  Commission- 
ers, and  Professor  Leutweiler. 

It  was  not  agreed  that  the  rust  on  the  machine  had 
come  from  acid  spilled  upon  it. 

That  was  suggested  by  Mr.  Hough  but  not  agreed  to. 
Witness  has  not  changed  his  mind  regarding  the  rust 
spots.  In  general  the  strips  seem  to  have  been  sherer- 
dized.    One,  however,  seemed  to  have  been  overlooked. 

Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

1686  What  the  witness  means  by  the  voter  selecting  his  own 
party  is  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  set  the  primary  lever 
for  himself  before  going  into  the  voting  machine. 

The  law  requires  the  judges  to  be  four  feet  away  from 
the  machine  and  the  witness  cannot  see  how  this  can  be 
lived  up  to  if  the  judges  adjust  the  primary-lever. 

1688  Anybody  with  a  key,  who  also  breaks  the  seal,  can  set 
the  primary-lever  so  the  voter  can  vote  for  any  party 
without  restriction.  The  seal  is  a  lead  seal  with  a  small 
wire. 

In  answering  questions  as  to  whether  he  would  reject 
the  machine  because  of  this  and  that  particular  defect, 
witness  simply  means  he  would  require  the  machine  to 
comply  with  the  law  or  he  would  reject  the  machine. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Mitchell. 

1689  If  a  machine  in  actual  use  at  an  election  could  be 
taken  from  the  truck  across  the  sidewalk  and  into  the 
polling  place  and  set  any  place  in  five  minutes  witness 
would  still  consider  that  the  question  of  weight  was  of 
serious  moment,  because  he  didn't  think  that  could  be 


378  Testimony  of  0.  A.  Leutmler. 

done  all  over  the  city.  If  it  was  proven  that  the  above 
had  been  done  repeatedly,  then  he  would  not  consider 
weight  a  serious  objection. 

1690  Witness  does  not  know  that  the  law  prohibits  polling 
places  being  elsewhere  than  on  the  first  floor. 

1691  Witness  has  not  been  a  judge  or  clerk  of  election,  a 
challenger  or  watcher,  or  a  candidate  for  office.    AVitness, 

1692  therefore,  knows  nothing  practical  regarding  the  prac- 
tical operation  of  the  Australian  ballot  law,  the  counting 
of  ballots,  and  so  forth,  or  the  relative  advantages  of 
such  voting  and  voting  on  the  machine. 

Witness  knows  that  elections  are  conducted  in  base- 
ments and  has  voted  in  one. 


0.  A.  Lbxjtwiler: 

1695  Eesides  at  511  West  Green  street,  Urbana,  Illinois. 
Teacher  at  the  University  of  Illinois,  Department  of  Me- 
chanical Engineering.  Has  been  teaching  there  ten 
years;  graduated  from  the  University  of  Illinois  in  1899 
from  the  same  department.  Has  worked  in  machine 
shops  prior  to  going  to  college,  during  college  vacation 
and  after  graduation  worked  in  the  shops  and  also  in  a 
designing  office. 

1696  Has  been  engaged  by  the  Election  Commissioners  of 
Chicago  to  investigate  voting  machines  on  two  occasions. 
The  spring  of  1908  and  the  fall  of  1909.  Witness  assisted 
Professor  Breckinridge  on  the  commission  of  experts  in 
1907. 

Professor  Breckinridge  was  professor  of  mechanical 
engineering  at  the  University  of  Chicago  and  has  since 
been  transferred  to  Yale  University,  Sheffield  Scientific 
School,  where  he  is  now. 

1697  In  1907  the  witness  helped  Professor  Breckinridge  on 
his  report,  and  on  the  other  two  occasions  made  reports 
of  his  own.  Witness'  reports  were  adverse  to  the  ma- 
chine. 

Witness  has  been  employed  to  examine  voting  machines 
by  the  Legislative  Investigating  Committee. 

1698  Witness  has  examined  the  machine  at  the  Hotel  LaSalle 
and  the  one  at  the  hearing  room. 

Witness  began  work  for  the  Legislative  Committee 
early  in  July  and  was  requested  to  serve  by  Govej-nor 
Deneen. 


Witness  Examines  Empire  Machine.  379 

"Q.  Did  you,  Mr.  Olson  and  Professor  Depuy  prepare 
a  statement  as  to  the  materials  in  that  machine,  its  mech- 
anism and  method  of  operation,  that  was  read  by  Pro- 
fessor Depuy  here  the  other  day!    A.    Yes,  sir." 

The  witness  has  also  helped  to  prepare  instruments  to 
obstruct  the  machine. 

1699  A  fraud  can  be  committed  with  the  wire  clips.  Wit- 
ness describes  the  clip  and  its  purpose  "that  prohibits 
or  rather,  bars  the  key  from  being  moved  down  by  the 
voter."  It  is  made  the  same  color  as  the  machine  so  as 
not  to  be  readily  discoverable. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  the  instructions  published  here  in 
reference  to  voting  a  split  ticket!  A.  Yes,  sir,  I  think 
the  voter  is  instructed  to  east  the  ballot  for  the  indi- 
vidual he  wishes  to  vote  for  outside  of  his  own  party, 
and  then  move  his  linger  and  pressing  down  at  the  same 
time  across  the  horizontal  row  of  the  party  of  his  choice, 

1700  and  that  might  be  that  wire  clip  might  restrict  some  of 
these  keys  and  he  may  not  notice  it  and  may  pass  it  up." 

This  is  liable  to  occur  on  group  candidates  especially. 

Witness  prepared  the  wire  clip  which  he  has  placed  on 
the  machine.  Its  purpose  is  to  deprive  the  voter  of  his 
vote  in  the  manner  above  described. 

1701  Witness  describes  the  angle  steel  obstruction  for  the 
voting  slide  in  the  independent  column  which  prevents  the 
shutter  from  being  opened  and  the  voter  from  voting. 
The  thin  edge  of  the  strip  only  is  presented  to  the  voter 
and  is  hardly  visible. 

1702  The  witness  describes  the  rubber  band  device,  its  oper- 
ation and  purpose  to  deprive  the  voter  of  his  vote  by 
returning  the  key  to  non-voting  position  after  it  is 
pressed  down  by  the  voter  and  before  the  voting-lever  is 
pulled. 

Judges  of  election  can  keep  track  of  voting  and  how 
individuals  vote  by  watching  the  counters. 

The  judges  have  charge  of  the  key  to  the  voting-lever, 
the  key  to  the  lock  on  the  righthand  end  of  the  machine 
and  to  lock  No.  3  on  the  back  of  the  voting  machine. 

The  custodian  has  two  keys,  one  to  the  lower  rear  door 

1703  and  the  key  locking  the  mechanism  on  the  counters. 

The  lower  compartment  contains  most  of  the  restric- 
tions. It  does  not  contain  the  question  restriction  which 
is  controlled  by  the  judge. 

Witness  describes  the  paper  roll.    The  judge  can  draw 


380  Frauds  Possible  on  Empire  Machine. 

the  pawl  from  the  ratchet  controlling  the  paper  roller  en- 
abling the  voter  "who  knows  the  condition  of  the  ma- 
chine" to  cast  two  votes. 

1704  The  judges  are  supposed  to  inspect  the  machine  in  the 
morning  to  see  that  all  the  counters  stand  at  zero.  There 
are  2127  coimters  on  the  back  of  the  machine. 

"These  zeros  are  located  on  the  individual  wheels  in- 
side of  those  counters,  each  counter  having  three  count- 
ing wheels  and  are  approximately  1  1/4  inches  high  and 
1/8  inch  wide  with  a  red  center,  red  enamel  center, 
black—" 

1705  Paper  zeros  may  be  pasted  over  the  figures  on  the 
counters,  confusing  them.  By  the  use  of  this  device,  one 
counter  may  be  set  ahead  and  one  back. 

The  custodian  who  has  the  keys  to  the  locking  counter 
could  make  one  set  of  counters  read  990  and  another  10, 
the  candidate  whose  counter  was  set  at  990  starts  ten 
below  zero.  After  ten  votes  his  counter  would  register 
nothing.  The  eleventh  vote  would  be  registered  as  one 
vote.  The  candidate  whose  counters  were  set  at  ten  would 
start  with  ten  votes  before  any  votes  were  actually  cast 
for  him. 

1706  The  same  fraud  might  be  practiced  upon  the  party-key. 
The  judges  could  set  the  counters  falsely  if  they  had  the 
key  and  break  the  seal  on  the  counter  lock.  This  is  an  or- 
dinary small  wire  and  lead  slug  seal. 

Witness  saw  numbers  but  no  identification  marks  on  the 
seals  he  examined. 

1707  It  is  not  difficult  to  break  such  a  seal  or  to  replace  it 
with  another. 

The  paper  zeros  put  on  the  machine  are  slipped  from 
the  wheel  in  the  operation  of  voting  and  drop  into  the 
bottom  compartment  to  which  the  custodian  is  the  only 
man  who  has  access.  This  evidence  of  a  fraud  which  he 
could  commit  would  be  in  his  own  hands  and  could  be 
easily  removed  by  him. 

1708-9  If  the  counters  were  set  too  far  ahead  or  too  far  l>e- 
hind,  the  fraud  might  be  discovered  by  inference  or  rea- 
soning but  not  by  anything  appearing  on  the  machine. 

1710  But  if  the  counters  were  set  so  that  enough  votes  were 
cast  to  reach  and  pass  the  zero  mark  on  the  counters 
which  were  set  there  would  be  no  evidence  whatever  on 
the  machine  for  the  fraud.  The  machine  would  aflford  no 
cheek  against  such  a  fraud. 


Empire  Machine  Does  Not  Record  Vote  Totals.       381 

This  particular  fraud  would  be  obviated  by  a  voting 
,  machine  that  has  a  ballot  printing  equipment. 

1711  Witness  describes  a  voting  machine  with  a  printing  at- 
tachment and  its  operation,  practically  limiting  frauds 
to  the  hours  when  the  voting  was  in  progress  and  elim- 
inating the  custodian. 

Witness  favors  the  party-lever.  It  expedites  voting 
the  split  ticket  and  enables  the  count  to  be  taken  more 
quickly  after  the  election  is  over.  It  does  its  own  add- 
ing. 

1712  Witness  describes  how  the  votes  are  added  on  the  Em- 
pire machine. 

"A.  The  votes  for  the  straight  party  must  be  added 
or,  to  put  it  another  way,  the  votes  of  the  individual  can- 
didates must  be  added  to  those  on  the  straight  ballot  keys. 
In  the  legislative  vote,  the  reading  on  the  counter  must  be 
multiplied  by  constants,  depending  on  how  the  ticket  is 
arranged  on  the  face  of  the  machine;  also  the  straight 
vote  given  these  candidates  must  be  multiplied  by  con- 
stants, and  then  the  results  must  be  added  to  get  the  final 
result  on  the  legislative  candidates. 

"Q.  On  the  face  of  the  machine  how  does  the  name  of 
the  candidate  appear?  A.  On  that  particular  machine 
located  in  the  room  here,  one  man's  name  appears  three 
times  in  the  individual  rows;  a  second  candidate  in  the 
same  party,  taking  the  Republican,  for  instance,  it  ap- 
pears in  three  columns,  and  then  there  are  two  columns 
where  the  man's  name  appears  just  once;  that  gives  each 
one  of  those  last  named  1  1/2  votes,  and  in  the  previous 
case,  each  man  can  get  three  votes,  or  you  can  split  two 
for  one  and  one  for  the  second. 

1713  "Q.  Now,  in  the  column  there,  referring  to  this  legis- 
lative device,  where  it  shows  the  Socialist  ticket,  and  Pro- 
gressive ticket  and  Prohibition  ticket,  1  1/2  votes,  say 
Mr.  Snite,  1  1/2  votes,  and  right  aside  of  it  is  a  blank. 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

' '  Q.  Now,  if  a  voter  voted  the  ticket  and  for  Mr.  Snite 
1  1/2  votes,  and  then  the  next  one  to  it  1  1/2  votes,  which 
is  blank,  what  would  be  counted  ?  A.  1  1/2  votes  for  Mr. 
Snite." 

Witness  describes  the  manner  of  taking  the  vote  off  the 
Empire  machine  by  judges  and  clerks ;  the  adding  of  the 
straight  ticket  to  the  split  ticket,  and  so  forth. 

The  Empire  machine  cannot  be  equipped  with,  a  party- 
lever  without  redesigning  it. 


382  Primary  Lever  Too  Small. 

1714  It  would  require  a  separate  connection  of  each  counter 
of  which  there  are  700.  As  the  Empire  machine  is 
equipped  at  present,  the  judge  cannot  prevent  a  voter 
from  voting  a  party-key  in  the  Independent  row. 

Custodian's  keys  could  be  duplicated  easily. 

1715  Witness  saw  Professor  Depuy  duplicate  keys.  The  Em- 
pire machine  could  be  adjusted  so  that  the  voter  can  cast 
more  than  three  votes  for  Representative  in  the  General 
Assembly;  it  can  be  adjusted  by  the  custodian  so  that  a 
voter  may  cast  any  number  of  votes  up  to  6. 

This  adjustment  can  be  made  in  half  a  minute  by  re- 
moving the  compensators  on  the  back  (bottom?)  of  the  re- 
stricting device. 

1716  The  machine  can  be  adjusted  to  permit  the  voter  to 
vote  his  party  ticket  and  also  for  some  individual  candi- 
date on  the  ticket  at  the  same  time.  This  adjustment  can 
be  made  by  the  removing  of  the  restricting  clips ;  the  cus- 
todian can  do  it  in  two  or  three  seconds. 

The  machine  has  a  device  for  primary  voting.  It  is 
at  the  right  hand  end  of  the  machine  and  is  controlled  by 
the  judges  and  is  so  small  that  it  may  be  covered  by  the 
judge's  hand. 

It  is  hard  to  distinguish. 

1717  If  the  operating  lever  of  this  device  is  placed  by  the 
judge  at  zero  the  voter  can  vote  for  any  candidate  regard- 
less of  party. 

The  compartment  containing  the  operating  mechanism 
of  this  device  is  accessible  to  the  custodian  and  the 
judges. 

Watchers  and  challengers  would  be  no  check  upon  vot- 
ing outside  of  party  affiliation  and  the  machine  would  not 
indicate  the  fraud  in  any  way. 

Witness  and  Professor  Depuy  and  Mr.  Olson  did  not 
think  that  the  voting  machine  at  the  La  Salle  Hotel  and 
the  voting  machine  in  the  hearing  room  were  properly 
set  up  "to  give  a  true  record  of  votes  cast  at  the  election 
of  November,  1912,  in  Cook  County." 

1718  "Q.  Will  you  describe  to  the  Committee  in  what  way 
you  think  they  were  not  set  up  properly?  A.  I  can't 
recall  the  party — 

"Q.  Party  row  C,  candidate  column  22,  name  of  candi- 
date for  Representative  was  not  repeated.  A.  In  the  two 
columns  that  are  intended  for  voting  1  1/2  votes  for  each 
of  two  candidates  for  Representative  in  the  General  As- 
sembly, there  only  appears  the  name  of  one  candidate  in 


Testimony  of  0.  A.  Leutwiler.  383 

the  particular  party  in  question,  and  that  name  is  not  re- 
peated. If  a  voter  comes  into  the  machine  and  wishes  to 
vote  a  split  ticket  but  wishes  to  give  the  particular  candi- 
date of  that  party  three  votes,  if  he  follows  instructions 
of  moving  the  keys  down  for  split  candidates  and  then 
runs  his  finger  along  the  row,  he  would  come  to  the  par- 
ticular keys  for  1  1/2  votes  first  depressing  that  key 
which  would  cut  him  out  from  voting  three  votes  for 
that  particular  candiate.  If  he  does  not  inspect  the  ma- 
chine very  carefully,  he  is  deprived  of  1  1/2  votes  for  that 
particular  candidate. 

"Q.  That  is  true  on  row  C,  column  22,  you  stated?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

* '  Q.    On  key  22-C  ?    A.    It  appears  on  two  other  rows. 

"Q-  -^iid  then  on  rows  D  and  F;  the  same  conditions 
prevail.    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.    You  think  the  candidate  lost  1  1/2  votes  that  way? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 
1719     "Q    Because  it  would  not  be  registered?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  There  is  nothing  on  the  rear  of  the  machine  to 
identify  it  with  a  blank  ?    A.    No,  sir. ' ' 

To  register  a  vote  the  voting-key  must  be  pressed  down 
3/8  of  an  inch.  If  pressed  down  only  9/32  of  an  inch  the 
vote  will  not  be  registered.  This  may  easily  occur  in  run- 
ning the  finger  over  the  keys  across  the  horizontal  rows 
and  the  voter  thus  will  be  deprived  of  a  vote. 

"Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  candidates  suffer  on  a 
group  ticket;  for  instance.  County  Commissioners'  ticket, 
where  a  man  votes  an  irregular  ticket,  outside  of  his  party 
column?    A.    In  that  particular  group? 

"Q.  Yes,  how  would  he  suffer  in  that  regard?  A. 
After  voting  for  the  candidates  he  wished  to  select,  out- 
.1720  side  of  his  own  party,  and  then  runs  his  finger  along  the 
particular  row  representing  the  party  of  his  choice,  he 
will  strike  the  right  hand  end  first  and  the  candidates  on 
the  left  hand  end  may  be  deprived  of  a  vote. 

"Q.  And  the  one  on  the  right  hand  end  is  sure  to  get 
it?    A.    Yes." 

Witness  imderstands  that  the  International  machine 
has  an  encased  lock  which  prevents  access  to  the  lock 
during  the  time  the  machine  is  in  operation.  Has  never 
seen  it  and  cannot  describe  its  mechanism. 
1721  The  channels  on  the  face  of  the  Empire  machine  fur- 
nish ready  means  of  applying  clips,  wires  and  other  re- 
strictive fraudulent  devices. 


384  .  Empire  Not  a  Good  Machine. 

"Q.  Would  you  regard  a  voting  machine  offering  as 
many  possibilities  of  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  custodian 
on  the  part  of  the  judges  and  on  the  part  of  the  voter, 
as  a  satisfactory  voting  machine  or  as  one  complying  with 
the  requirements  of  the  voting  macliine  law  that  tamper- 
ing with  or  manipulating  the  registering  mechanism  for 
any  fraudulent  purpose  shall  be  absolutely  prevented?  A. 
I  certainly  should  not  consider  it  as  a  good  machine." 

Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  thinks  the  last  question  applies  to  the  Empire 
voting  machine  and  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  it  does 
not  comply  with  the  law  and  is  not  a  satisfactory  ma- 
chine, in  that  it  is  not  absolutely  secure  against  tamper- 
ing. 

1722  The  witness'  testimony  has  largely  followed  an  outline 
prepared  by  himself,  Professor  Depuy,  Mr.  Olson  and 
Governor  Deneen.  Witness  thinks  his  answers  represent 
his  independent  judgment  in  all  cases. 

1723  Witness  is  an  Independent  in  politics  leaning  toward 
Progressive  and  if  not  progressive  (before  the  days  of?), 
toward  the  Republicans. 

Witness  entered  the  University's  employ  in  the  fall  of 
1903  and  has  been  there  since.  Is  assistant  professor  of 
machinery  design. 

1724  Witness  assisted  Professor  Breckinridge  in  his  report, 
but  never  read  it. 

1725  The  following  year  when  ax;ting  as  expert  he  did  not 
follow  the  outline  of  that  report,  but  a  paper  provided  by 
the  Election  Commissioners. 

Witness  also  had  a  supplementary  table  which  he  pre- 
pared because  he  did  not  think  the  Commissioners'  table 
was  just  what  it  ought  to  be. 

In  1908  witness  followed  these  questions: 
"  Q.  In  1908  you  said  in  your  report :  '  The  writer  hav- 
ing given  Professor  Breckinridge  some  assistance  in  the 
first  examination  of  the  voting  machines  submitted  to 
your  Board  in  November,  1907,  cannot  help  but  remark 
on  the  improvement  made  on  some  of  the  machines  since 
that  time.  The  question  immediately  arises,  Why  will 
they  not  continue  to  improve  until  the  fraud  and  manipu- 
lation of  the  machine  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  section 
of  this  report  will  be  entirely  eliminated.     Until  this  is 

1726  accomplished  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of 


Former  Examin-ations  of  Voting  Machines.  385 

the  Citj-  of  Chicago  would  be  entirely  justified  in  post- 
poning purchasing  a  voting  machine,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
writer  a  machine  that  comes  nearest  to  fulfilling  all  of  the 
conditions  required  of  the  machine  and  carrying  out  the 
requirements.'  Those  words  expressed  your  views  in 
1908!  A.  Those  were  my  views  at  that  time,  yes,  sir." 
In  the  examination  of  1907  witness  gave  the  Columbia 
100%  and  fixed  the  percentages  of  the  other  machines 
at  less  than  100. 

1727  The  grades  were  all  made  relative  to  the  Columbia 
which  was  deemed  the  best  machine. 

Witness  cannot  recall  whether  the  (Columbia  had  a 
party-key  and  the  United  States  Standard  a  party-lever. 

The  witness  at  that  time  recognized  the  party-lever  and 
the  party-key  question  as  an  important  one,  but  there 
were  other  objections  and  he  didn't  deem  it  necessary  to 
put  all  in  his  report. 

If  the  report  so  states,  he  at  that  time  gave  the  prefer- 
ence to  a  machine  with  a  party-key  as  against  one  with 
a  party-lever. 

1728  Witness  does  not  remember  enough  to  recognize  in  the 
Empire  machine  the  features  of  the  Columbia,  United 
States  Standard  and  Dean  machines. 

1729  When  obstructions,  such  as  clips,  wires,  wedges  and  so 
forth  are  placed  on  the  face  of  a  machine,  a  voter  may  or 
may  not  discover  that  they  are  fraudulent. 

1730  The  rubber  band  fraud  depends  on  the  voter  not  ob- 
serving it. 

The  witness  has  tried  rubber  bands  on  all  the  machines 
he  examined.  Witness  recalls  a  machine  in  which  the 
voting-key  made  a  complete  revolution  and  practically 
abolished  the  use  of  rubber  bands. 
1732  It  is  probably  true  that  the  voting  machine  examined  by 
the  witness  was  susceptible  of  some  restrictions  by  rubber 
bands,  wedges,  springs,  clips,  and  so  forth. 

Witness  thinks  he  could  devise  a  restriction-proof  key. 

1734  "Q.  Well  now,  would  you  reject  that  machine,  or  any 
voting  machine  because  of  what  could  be  done  by  way  of 
restrictive  clips  or  rubber  bands  on  the  face  of  the  ma- 
chine? A.  I  should  say  it  would  influence  me  very 
much." 

1735  It  will  be  necessary  in  any  voting  machine  mechanism 
to  move  a  key  to  start  the  voting  mechanism. 

1736  Witness  thinks  the  angle  steel  restriction  in  the  inde- 
pendent voting  slides  is  an  objection  to  the  machine. 


386  Testimony  of  0.  A.  Leutwiler. 

Witness  is  asked  whether  he  would  reject  the  machine 
on  that  account,  and  says  "It  would  be  one  of  the  points 
that  should  be  considered  very  seriously." 

1737  The  judge  who  removes  the  pawl  from  the  ratchet  con- 
trolling the  paper  roller,  breaks  a  law  if  he  is  manipulat- 
ing the  machine  for  fraudulent  purposes. 

Opening  the  rear  door  to  do  this  would  stop  voting  for 
the  time  being. 

A  vote  on  the  paper  roll  at  a  primary  election  is  identi- 
fied by  perforation  in  the  roll. 

1738  Fraudulent  writing  in  name  in  the  paper  roll  would 
show  no  perforation.  It  would  deprive  the  honest  voter 
from  writing  any  names  on  the  paper  roll  because  the 
slack  produced  by  the  fraudulent  vote  would  not  be 
taken  up. 

1740  Witness  thinks  the  judge  could  remove  the  pawl  with- 
out being  observed  by  others  in  the  polling  place  in  the 
morning. 

1741  During  the  voting,  to  do  this  might  require  co-operation 
and  acquiescence  of  everybody.  The  zero  position  of  the 
primary  device  is  provided  to  permit  the  use  of  the  ma- 
chine in  general  elections.  For  primary  elections  the  zero 
can  be  locked  out  by  an  attachment  hook  inside  the  ma- 
chine with  a  seal  on  it. 

1742  The  judges  can  open  the  middle  door  and  break  this 
seal. 

A  party  watcher  might  not  know  that  the  machine  was 
set  at  zero  or  what  could  be  done  when  so  set. 

The  observer  has  to  be  very  close  to  the  machine  to  see 
where  the  primary-lever  is  set,  within  one  or  two  feet, 
probably. 

1743  The  primary-lever  is  about  3  1/2  to  4  inches  long;  the 
numbers  are  apart  about  3/4  of  an  inch;  maybe  an  inch. 

The  witness  sees  no  objection  to  a  longer  lever  con- 
structed properly  so  that  a  voter  could  see  where  it  was 
set. 

In  this  machine  a  longer  lever  might  protrude  out  too 
far. 

1744  If  properly  set,  the  party-lever  restricts  the  voter  to 
the  party  of  his  choice.  The  party-lever  may  be  moved 
by  the  judge  up  to  the  point  when  the  voting-lever  is 
moved  by  the  voter. 

1746  Witness  thinks  the  voting  machine  should  be  fraud- 
proof  and  that  although  a  fraud  may  be  instantly  detect- 
able, it  is  still  an  objection  to  the  machine. 


i 


Testimony  of  0.  A.  Leutwiler.  387 

1747  The  restriction  on  proposition  voting  is  somewhat  sim- 
ilar to  the  restriction  on  primary  voting,  the  judge  being 
given  an  opportunity  to  restrict  the  proposition.  There 
is  a  device  for  this  purpose  and  it  is  operated  by  the 
judges. 

1748  The  protection  against  improper  manipulation  by  the 
judges  is  watchers  and  persons  in  the  polling  place. 

1749  The  custodian  can  most  easily  place  paper  zeros  on  the 
counters  but  the  judges  could  do  it  if  they  had  the  keys, 
though  with  more  trouble,  to  set  some  candidates  ahead 
and  falsify  the  final  count.  This  would  require  the 
judges'  and  custodian's  key,  and  might  be  done  in  such 

1750  a  way  during  the  night  or  in  the  morning  as  to  deceive 
the  other  judge. 

It  could  not  be  honestly  done  with  the  machine  honest- 
ly adjusted  and  the  custodian's  key  in  the  hands  of  the 
custodian  unless  that  the  judges  had  duplicate  keys  for 
making  which  he  would  have  to  have  the  original  key. 

1751  As  a  protection  against  paper  zeros  on  counters,  wit- 
ness suggests  the  printing  voting  machine  device. 

Witness  doubts  very  much  if  "rigid  inspection  by  hon- 
est judges  would  discover  the  paper  zeros." 

1752  The  judges  and  clerks  might  puncture  them  with  a 
pointed  instrument. 

Witness  has  seen  a  sample  ballot  printed  on  a  printing 
voting  machine  and  does  not  think  the  device  a  crude  one 
but  did  not  notice  all  the  figures  on  the  ballot. 
1755  Witness  thinks  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  put  an  ob- 
struction on  the  printing  type  that  could  not  be  discov- 
ered when  an  impression  was  taken. 

A  dishonest  judge  might  use  some  device  to  change  the 
figures  on  a  printing  machine,  an  8  to  a  zero,  or  a  9  to  a 
six. 

Witness  thinks  there  should  be  about  four  prints  taken 
off. 

1757  If  you  have  a  party-bar  on  a  machine  of  the  Empire 
type  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  party  bar  run  through  the 
whole  length  of  the  machine  with  points  projecting  to  en- 
gage the  counter  mechanism  opposite  each  name  or  each 
office  line. 

Cumulative  voting  would  require  the  use  of  12  office 
lines  if  a  full  set  of  three  candidates  were  nominated ;  if 
two  candidates,  less  space. 

1758  It  might  be  necessary  to  change  the  party-bar  and  the 


388  Witness  Favors  a  Party  Lever. 

engaging  points  with  a  change  from  year  to  year  in  the 
number  of  legislative  candidates. 

1759  These  difficulties  were  considered  in  1907  and  1909  by 
the  experts. 

1760  Witness  was  not  present  at  the  so-called  "knock  fest," 
but  read  about  it. 

The  difference  between  a  party-key  and  a  party-lever  is 
well  worth  considering.  Qualified  men  may  differ  as  to 
the  merit  of  the  two. 

"Q.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  question  2  on  the 
questions  prepared  by  the  judge,  that  were  used  by  Pro- 
fessor Breckenridge  in  1907  and  by  you  in  1908  under  the 
head  of  'Simplicity  of  Operation.'  In  voting  a  straight 
ticket  you  gave  the  American  100  and  you  gave  the  Co- 
lumbia 100  and  you  gave  the  U.  S.  Standard  90,  the  U. 
S.  Standard  had  a  party-lever  and  the  Columbia  had  a 
party-key;  at  that  time  you  did  not  consider  a  party-key 
objectionable?    A.    Not  necessarily,  no." 

1761  The  party-lever  always  added  to  the  difficulty  in  the 
matter  of  pounds '  pull.  Some  machines  had  a  pull  of  over 
50  pounds.    Witness  did  not  measure  the  pull. 

Witness  has  changed  his  mind  somewhat  since  1908  but 
has  always  favored  a  party-lever. 

They  may  give  a  machine  with  a  party-key  the  highest 
grading  in  his  report  of  1908. 


Afternoon  Session. 
Wednesday,  August  6,  1913. 

1764  0.  A.  Leutwilee,  resumed  the  stand: 

Further  Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

1765  In  the  case  of  the  printing  voting  machine  it  might  be 
possible  for  dishonest  judges  and  clerks  to  put  a  strip  of 
paper  between  the  counters  and  the  printing  ribbon  and 
prevent  the  taking  of  an  impression  and  afterwards  print- 
ing in  with  a  rubber  stamp  a  false  record  of  the  counters. 

If  the  machine  were  properly  designed  the  witness  does 
not  think  that  an  impression  of  the  Governor's  vote  could 
be  transferred  to  that  of  Lieutenant-Governor  or  vice 
versa. 


^ 


Testimony  of  0.  A.  Leutwiler.  389 

1766  The  witness  has  seen  an  impression  that  he  understood 
was  taken  from  a  printing  machine  on  a  paper  ballot. 

The  substitution  by  a  rubber  stamp  of  a  cipher  for  an 
8  or  a  cipher  for  a  6  by  making  an  erasure  should  be  dis- 
coverable. 

There  are  certain  types  of  6's  which  can  be  changed  to 
zero,  but  probably  a  6,  as  ordinarily  constructed,  could  not 
be  so  changed.  Witness  thinks  the  same  as  to  the  figure  9. 

1767  The  Empire  machine,  when  properly  set,  will  work 
properly ;  otherwise  not,  and  when  the  machine  is  set  im- 
properly it  works  precisely  according  to  the  false  setting. 
If  it  is  set  for  four  votes  for  Representative  you  can  only 
vote  four,  and  so  forth.  Same  is  true  of  all  lock-outs 
and  grouping  devices. 

1768  As  to  the  failure  to  repeat  the  name  of  a  candidate  for 
Representative  on  the  machine  at  the  Hotel  La  Salle  and 
in  the  hearing  room,  and  the  leaving  of  a  blank  in  the  1 
and  1  1/2  vote  columns,  witness  thinks  the  name  should 
have  been  repeated.  It  is  not  a  mechanical  imperfection 
of  the  machine. 

Witness  thinks  that  the  instructions  from  the  Election 
Commissioners'  office  to  the  judges  to  count  3  votes  for 
a  man  with  1 1/2  votes  to  his  name  and  1  1/2  votes  voted 
in  blank,  might  authorize  the  judges  to  count  3  votes  for 
him ;  it  would  be  a  question  of  construction  as  to  what  the 
voter  intended. 

From  the  evidence  of  rust  in  the  machine  at  the  Hotel 
La  Salle,  the  witness  concludes  that  the  Empire  machine 
did  not  use  exactly  the  right  material. 

1769  The  strip  running  from  the  key  to  the  restricting  wedge 
was  not  covered  with  a  protective  coating.  This  was  ap- 
parently an  oversight. 

The  horizontal  bar  that  contains  the  restricting  spaces 
also  has  rough  spots  and  irregularities  here  and  there 
along  its  entire  length. 

1770  Witness  did  not  see  a  rusty  space  about  four  or  five 
inches  long  and  3/16  inch  wide  on  top  of  the  cliannel 
bar,  only  saw  irregi;lar  spot.  The  rust  spot  matter  was 
discussed  between  witness  and  Mr.  Depuy  and  Mr.  Olson, 

1771  but  did  not  count  them.  The  rust  spots  are  reddish 
brown  in  color  with  white  along  the  edges  and  looks  as  if 
it  was  coming  out  of  the  coating. 

Witness  also  saw  another  spot  at  the  top  of  the  machine 
on  one  of  these  levers. 


390        If  Custodian,  Witness  Could  Falsify  Election. 

1772  How  long  it  would  take  such  corrosion  to  "put  the  ma- 
chine out  of  business"  depends  on  what  it  is  caused  hy. 

The  occurrence  of  spots  causes  witness  to  think  that  the 
material  of  the  machine  was  not  chosen  properly. 

Witness  has  had  no  time  to  examine  the  machine  in  the 
hearing  room,  but  has  noticed  no  signs  of  corrosion. 

Witness  never  examined  as  good  a  machine  as  the  Em- 
pire machine  exhibited  here  this  year. 

1773  Witness  has  no  objection  to  a  party-lever. 

1774  Witness  does  not  know  whether  the  key  which  will  not 
vote  when  pulled  down  9/32  of  an  inch  and  will  when 
pulled  down  11/32  will  vote  at  10/32. 

Witness  thinks  the  machine  can  be  improved  consid- 
erably by  having  a  smooth  front. 

Witness  does  not  think  a  voter  who  cannot  read  or 
write  and  needed  instructions  how  to  vote  could  vote  in 
a  minute. 

It  is  as  easy  to  defraud  on  the  machine  as  the  paper 
ballot  if  the  officers  are  in  collusion. 

1775  Witness  doubts  whether  or  not  a  number  of  custodians 
from  each  party  would  prevent  frauds  on  the  machine, 
but  that  it  would  eliminate  a  good  deal  of  fraud. 

Witness  thinks  a  fraudulent  restricting  device  might 
be  put  on  a  key  to  permit  it  to  go  down  9/32  of  an  inch, 
and  give  the  voter  the  impression  he  had  voted  when  in 
fact  he  had  not. 

1776  It  is  a  general  truth  that  any  machine  designed  by  one 
man  is  susceptible  by  manipulation  by  another. 

The  instructions  to  voters  for  voting  a  split  ticket  to 
vote  first  for  candidates  outside  of  their  party  and  then 
run  their  finger  along  the  party  row,  were  instructions 
that  the  experts  had  for  the  old  machines. 

1777  Witness  has  seen  no  instructions  to  voters  for  machines 
purchased  by  the  Election  Commissioners. 

Witness  received  no  instructions  to  voters  for  the  ma- 
chine at  the  Hotel  La  Salle  or  the  one  at  the  hearing 
room. 

Witness  thinks  if  he  were  custodian  and  had  sufficient 
time,  he  could  produce  any  result  he  desired  at  the  fol- 
lowing election  and  could  cheat  30,000  or  50,000  or  any 
number  of  votes  in  the  course  of  an  election. 

It  would  be  possible  to  fill  the  General  Assembly  with 

1778  Representatives  from  Cook  County  elected  fraudu- 
lently, who  would  then  pass  upon  the  integrity  of  their 
own  election. 


Means  of  Doing  This  on  Empire.  391 

In  accomplisliing  what  he  has  recited,  the  witness,  as 
custodian,  could  fix  the  counters,  pull  out  the  pawl  on 
the  paper  roll  at  the  top,  leave  out  restricting  wedges, 
manipulate  the  legislative  device,  and  in  that  way,  with 
the  number  of  machines  required  in  Chicago,  it  would 
mount  up  very  fast. 

Witness  thinks  the  paper  zeros  used  to  set  some  coun- 

1779  ters  ahead  and  other  counters  back  would  be  discovered 
in  some  instances.  But  "enough  would  pass  to  cause 
quite  a  disturbance." 

The  removal  of  restricting  wedges  to  permit  6  votes 
to  be  cast  for  Representative  might  not  be  disQOvered  by 
the  first  10,  15  or  100  voters. 

Even  after  the  present  investigation  and  the  publicity 
given  to  it,  the  witness  believes  that  the  voting  machine 
can  be  manipulated  to  a  certain  extent  and  change  the 
result  of  an  election  within  certain  limits. 

1780  Witness  thinks  it  possible  that  such  a  fraud  might  be 
perpetrated  in  a  majority  of  the  precincts  in  Chicago; 

1781  though,  possibly,  the  majority  of  the  machines  might 
not  come  to  the  election  without  being  discovered. 

By  setting  counters  back  of  zero,  a  custodian  can  steal 
a  number  of  votes  from  an  individual  candidate ;  sheriff, 
for  instance;  but  with  a  machine  properly  set  he  cannot 
prevent  a  key  pulled  into  voting  position  from  register- 
ing a  vote  for  such  candidate.  The  counters  register 
positively. 

1782  The  general  changing  of  the  result  of  an  election  would 
depend  upon  the  paper  zeros  and  putting  on  restrictive 
clips  on  an  individual  candidate. 

If  the  judges  are  instructed  to  look  out  for  paper  zeros 
the  witness  thinks  they  would  discover  them  if  all  the 
judges  did  as  instructed. 

To  perpetrate  a  fraud,  w'itness  would  not  alter  the 
construction  of  the  machine. 

1783  If  the  machine  was  set  so  as  to  permit  6  votes  to  be 
cast  for  Representative  this  could  be  done  by  voters  in 
the  party  but  it  might  not  be  designed  to  be  known  by 
the  voters  of  all  parties. 

Knowledge  by  voters  of  one  party  that  the  machine 

was  mis-set  to  permit  6  votes  for  Representative  could 

be  taken  advantage  of  to  favor  w'et  candidates  or  dry 

candidates,  or  corporation  measures  or  anything  else. 

1785    With  a  thousand  machines  in  use  and  each  machine 


392  Difficulty  of  Detection. 

mis-set  a  party  could  be  defrauded  of  50,000  votes  in 
Cook  County. 

In  order  to  detect  the  false  zeros  the  judges  would 
have  to  inspect  with  a  sharp  instrument  2,167  registers 
on  each  machine.  Witness  does  not  think  a  judge  could 
do  this  between  5  and  6  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

1786  It  would  be  possible  to  paint  zeros  over  the  face  of  the 
counters  instead  of  using  paper  zeros  and  have  plenty 
of  time  to  remove  them  before  the  next  election. 

Witness  states  that  in  putting  on  paper  zeros  he  curled 
them  a  little  at  the  top  so  that  in  turning  they  would 
strike  a  small  pin  and  be  stripped  to  fall  to  the  bottom  of 
the  machine. 

1787  Zeros  painted  over  the  counters  by  the  custodian  would 
require  a  necessary  time  either  to  do  the  work  alone  or 
that  the  men  wdth  him  were  as  dishonest  as  he. 

1788  Aluminum  zeros  might  be  glued  on  over  the  face  of 
the  counters  with  metal  cement. 

1789  The  paper  zero  used  by  witness  was  pasted  over  the 
counter  with  dextrine,  a  material  similar  to  that  used 
on  postage  stamps,  and  is  stripped  off  before  the  counter 
makes  a  complete  revolution. 

Witness  thinks  the  openings  were  too  small  to  permit 
the  paper  zeros  to  be  swept  from  the  machine  by  a  stiff 
brush. 

A  paper  zero  can  be  put  on  in  such  a  way  that  it  would 
adhere  to  the  face  of  the  counter  all  day  and  so  cheat  the 
fraud  perpetrator  out  of  50  or  lOO  votes,  but  not  if  they 
were  put  on  correctly. 

In  the  fall  of  1908  witness  reported  on  the  Empire, 
Triumph,  Wilcox  and  Winslow  voting  machines.  Wit- 
ness cannot  recall  the  details  of  this  examination. 

1791  Witness  thinks  that  in  that  report  he  said  of  the  Em- 
pire machine,  something  like  "The  general  design  of 
this  machine  is  probably  the  best  of  any  machine  the 
writer  examined."    Witness  thinks  that  is  true  now. 

1792  Witness  has  never  been  judge  or  clerk  of  election,  or 
challenger  or  watcher  or  candidate. 

1793  Has  never  lived  in  Chicago  and  knows  nothing  of  elec- 
tion conditions  in  Chicago  except  what  he  reads. 

1794  Witness  has  heard  that  a  judge  who  knows  the  voter 
of  opposite  politics  might  neglect  to  put  the  judge's  ini- 
tials on  the  ballot  and  so  disfranchise  him. 

1795  Witness  does  not  know  about  workers  outside  of  poll- 


Testimony  of  0.  A.  Leutwiler.  393 

ing  places  giving  marked  ballots  to  voters  who  voted,  in- 
stead of  the  ballot  given  them  by  the  judges,  which  they 
return  to  the  worker,  who  pays  them  a  dollar  for  every 
vote;  has  heard  something  of  it. 
1796  To  examine  every  counter  with  a  sharp  instrument, 
the  judges  would  have  to  examine  36  7/60  counters  per 
minute. 

1798  Grading  a  machine  at  100  does  not  mean  it  is  perfect, 
but  only  that  it  is  the  best  machine  according  to  which 
the  grades  of  other  machines  are  fixed. 

Witness  gave  a  grade  of  95%  to  a  party-lever  and  100% 
to  a  party-key  machine  because  it  is  mechanically  easier 
to  press  a  key  than  to  pull  a  lever. 

"Q.  But  the  key  does  not  add  the  voting  in  the  rear 
which  the  lever  does?  A.  It  adds  for  that  particular 
vote  but  not  for  the  split  vote. 

"Q.    Yes.     Referring  to  the  part  of  the  machine,  the 

1799  lower  part,  the  key  to  which  is  kept  by  the  custodian, 
and  where  the  clips  are  stored  and  used,  I  will  ask  you 
whether  those  clips  are  separate  or  placed  on  a  string  or 
bar?    A.    The  lower  row  of  restricting  clips  are  in  units. 

"Q.     In  units?     A.     Separate  units. 

"Q.  Separate  units'?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  Should  they  be  otherwise?  A.  Why,  in  my  mind 
they  ought  to  be. 

"Q.  Why?  A.  Because  the  way  that  machine  is  now 
built  it  looks  as  if  it  is  just  built  to  manipulate  by  the 
custodian." 

1800  Witness  is  shown  the  original  notes  of  his  examina- 
tion of  the  Empire  machine  in  1909  and  reads  from  the 
notes  the  number  of  the  machine  "Empire  3592."  The 
machine  was  made  by  the  Empire  company  at  Rochester, 
New  York. 

1801  In  all  the  witness'  reports  he  advised  the  Election  Com- 
missioners not  to  purchase  voting  machines. 

Witness  knew  of  the  people's  voting  in  favor  of  the 
machine  but  did  not  find  a  machine  adaptable  to  condi- 
tions here. 

Witness  understood  that  the  people  wanted  a  machine 

1802  that  would  comply  with  the  Illinois  ballot  law  and  ad- 
vised the  Election  Commissioners  that  the  machine  did 
not  comply  with  its  requirements. 

1803  Witness  will  not  say  that  in  his  report  of  1909  lie  stated 
in  those  words  that  the  machine  did  not  comply  with  the 
state  law,  but  he  found  the  machine  defective. 


394  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 

1804  "Q.  You  seem  to  have  said  at  one  time  'The  question 
immediately  arises,  why  should  not  the  voting  machine 
continue  to  improve  until  the  fraudulent  manipulation 
mentioned  in  the  foregoing  sections  of  this  report  will 
be  entirely  eliminated.  Until  this  is  accomplished  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  Chicago  would  be 
entirely  justified  in  postponing  the  purchase  of  voting 
machines.'  In  the  previous  section  you  refer,  as  I  take 
it,  as  applied  to  the  Winslow  voting  machine,  and  you 
refer  to  some  defects  in  the  machine.  Was  not  it  in 
your  mind  in  thest  reports  that  the  possibilities  of  fraud- 
ulent manipulation,  you  thought  were  too  great  to  justify 
the  purchase  of  machines?     A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  You  do  not  mean  to  tell  us  that  you  took  the  ma- 
chine and  put  it  alongside  the  statute,  that  is,  tried  it 
up  with  the  statute  and  examined  it  as  to  each  one  of  the 
requirements  of  the  statutes?  A.  I  do  not  understand 
the  question. 

"Q.  I  say,  you  did  not  test  that  machine  with  reference 
to  the  statute,  did  vouf  A.  Well,  in  a  general  way  I 
did." 

1806  Witness  knows  of  no  lock  the  key  of  which  cannot  be 
imitated  if  you  had  the  original  key. 

1808  ' '  The  Chaibman.  The  record  will  show  that  counsel  for 
the  Committee  called  Mr.  Keiper. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    Yes,  and  I  will  tender  him  as  my  wit- 


Fbank  Keiper: 

1809  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Lives  at  Rochester,  New  York.    Is  a  patent  attorney; 

1810  was  Assistant  Examiner  of  Patents  in  tht  Patent  Office 
from  1894  to  1899,  the  last  two  years  was  assigned  to 
registering  machines,  principally  voting  machines. 

1811  Witness  left  the  Patent  Office  to  be  employed  by  the 
.   U.  S'.  Voting  Machine  Company  of  Jamestown,  New  York, 

in  1899,  and  was  with  that  company  until  1910,  when  the 
company  was  merged  into  the  U.  S.  Standard  Company. 
Witness  was  patent  attorney  for  the  latter  company 
Avhich  was  merged  into  the  Empire  Company  in  1908  and 
has  been  patent  attorney  for  the  Empire  Company  ever 
since. 


I 


Knows  AU  Types  of  Voting  Machines.  395 

Witness  is  familiar  with  the^  different  types  of  voting 
machines,  through  the  study  of  all  the  patents  which 
have  been  issued  by  the  United  States  on  voting  ma- 
chines. There  are  very  few  foreign  patents  on  voting 
machines. 

1812  Witness  has  written  a  number  of  voting  machine  laws 
and  has  looked  after  all  of  the  general  litigation  in  which 
the  voting  machine  company  has  been  interested  and  has 
contributed  to  the  construction  of  the  machine. 

1813  Witness  has  also  attended  many  places  where  voting 
machines  have  been  installed  and  exhibited,  and  super- 
intended their  use  in  elections. 

Witness  is  the  inventor  of  the  inter-lock  on  the  Empire 
voting  machine  which  is  not  used  in  any  voting  machine 
except  the  Empire  and  United  States  Standard,  in  which 
it  has  been  used  since  1903. 

A  plate  on  the  Empire  machine  shows  the  number  of 
patents  which  have  been  issued  which  are  in  use  in  that 
machine.  These  are  owned  by  the  Empire  Machine  Com- 
pany. 

1814  Witness  has  seen  a  number  of  machines  which  print 
a  vote  before  and  after  election. 

The  idea  is  an  old  one,  but  nobody  has  ever  made  it 
work  so  that  they  wanted  to  try  it  a  second  time.  It  has 
never  been  used  and  stayed  in  use  for  more  than  one 
election. 

Witness  saw  the  International  machine  exhibited  be- 
fore the  Chicago  Election  Board  in  Novembeer,  1907. 

The  counter  wheels  in  this  machine  have  raised  figures 
on  them. 

1815  In  the  International  the  printing  was  done  by  an  inked 
ribbon  the  full  width  of  the  counter  frame  and  covered 
the  7-party  rows,  as  witness'  impression  is. 

A  tally-sheet  was  placed  over  the  ribbon  and  a  roller 
or  some  device  was  fastened  over  the  paper  so  as  to 
force  it  down  in  contact  with  the  ribbon  so  that  an  im- 
pression could  be  made  upon  the  paper. 

1816  A  printed  impression  could  be  taken  by  inking,  of 
course,  on  the  counter-wheels  and  witness  has  the  im- 
pression that  the  old  Ellis  machine  was  operated  in  that 
way.    None  of  the  Ellis  machines  was  sold. 

The  objection  to  the  copying  ribbon  method  of  printing 
is  that  there  was  no  uniformity  or  reliability  of  its  im- 
pression and  a  certain  amount  of  skill  was  required  in 


396  Objections  to  "Printing"  Machines. 

taking  the  copy,  which  was. beyond  the  skill  of  the  average 
Election  Board  member. 

Ink  ribbons  would  have  to  be  renewed  every  year  or 
they  would  dry  out  and  the  impression  would  not  be 
made  or  would  be  very  irregular;  also  that  dirt  would 
accumulate  in  the   raised  figures,  making  the  printing 

1817  blur. 

It  was  necessary  also  to  take  a  separate  impression  of 
each  row  of  keys  instead  of  the  whole  face  of  the  ma- 
chine, because,  in  the  latter  case  it  would  be  certain  that 
the  roller  would  not  make  an  impression  of  some  of  the 
counters  because  they  did  not  line  up  evenly.  Each 
counter  has  tlaree  wheels  and  if  there  is  any  variation 
in  the  counter-wheels  there  is  a  faint  impression  on  one 
side  and  a  heavy  impression  on  the  other,  and  in  some 
cases  no  impression  at  all. 

1818  Where  there  was  a  slight  impression  there  would  be 
an  opportunity  for  change  in  figures  which  could  be 
duplicated  with  an  ordinary  rubber  stamp. 

A  blank  could  be  made  in  the  impression  at  any  point 
desired  by  holding  up  the  roller  at  that  particular  point. 
After  taking  an  impression,  if  a  single  counter  has  not 
printed  the  work  has  all  to  be  done  over  again. 

1819  The  International  machine  had  a  horizontal  keyboard 
which  was  detached  from  the  counter  frame  aud  the  ma- 
chine had  to  be  turned  over  to  get  at  the  counters  for 
printing  purposes. 

If  the  carbon  paper  is  damp  it  will  smear  the  paper. 
The  old  Davis  voting  machine,  built  in  Rochester,  in  1895, 
had  a  party-lever  by  the  operation  of  which  all  the  voting 
keys  were  thrown  into  voting  position  at  a  single  stroke. 

The  Columbia,  the  United  States,  Standard  and  the 
Dean  machine  go  to  make  the  Empire  voting  machine. 

1820  The  Columbia  operated  with  a  party-key;  the  United 
States  Standard  with  a  party-lever;  the  Dean  had  a 
party-lever. 

Witness  just  now  thinks  of  but  one  advantage  to  a 
party-lever ;  that  it  throws  all  the  keys  to  voting  position 
at  a  single  operation,  and  would  take  perhaps  three  or 
four  seconds  in  voting  a  straight  ticket  on  the  individual 
key. 

It  would  have  some  advantage,  also,  in  voting  a  split 
ticket. 

The  relative   advantages   of  party-levers   and  party- 


Objections  to  Party  Lever.  397 

keys  were  discussed  before  the  Chicago  Election  Commis- 
sioners in  1907. 

1821  The  party-lever  is  especially  objectionable  in  the  State 
of  Illinois  because  of  the  great  size  of  the  ticket  on  ac- 
count of  the  great  strain  produced  on  the  machine  by 
moving  all  the  keys  in  a  single  operation  and  the  liability 
to  strain  the  interlocking  mechanism  unless  the  machine 
is  specially  protected. 

Witness  describes  how  a  voter  could  pull  the  party- 
lever  and  vote  a  straight  ticket,  throw  back  the  key  for 
Governor  and  vote  the  key  for  Governor  in  the  next  party 

1822  row,  and  then  pull  the  party-lever  again  throwing  the 
whole  leverage  of  the  party-lever  on  the  single  key  and 
on  the  interlock. 

Under  such  circumstances,  unless  the  interlocking  de- 
vices in  the  machine  were  made  very  strong,  there  is  a 
chance  of  breaking  something. 

"Witness  describes  the  mechanism  of  the  U.  S.  Stand- 
ard machine  which  had  a  party-lever,  and  "was  built  very 
heavy  in  those  parts  so  that  there  would  not  be  any 
danger  of  the  party-lever  injuring  the  parts  inside  the 
machine." 

The  party-lever  necessitates  additional  parts  in  the 
macliine  and  thus  adds  to  its  weight. 

"A.  Those  are  additional  parts  in  the  machine  and 
contribute  to  the  weight  and  complexity  of  the  machine, 
I  should  not  regard  those  as  a  very  serious  objection, 
but  the  most  serious  objection  to  the  use  of  a  party-lever 
in  the  Illinois  voting  machine  arises  on  account  of  the 

1823  cumulative  voting,  the  party-lever  must  move  all  of  the 
keys  in  the  party  line  to  a  voting  position  at  a  single 
stroke,  and  you  will  observe  from  the  setting  of  this 
machine  with  its  cumulative  voting  attachment  on  it  that 
it  is  impossible  in  the  eight  keys  that  are  given  up  to 
the  Representative  candidates  on  any  party-row  to  oper- 
ate any  more  than  two  or  three  of  them  and  the  rest  of 
them  are  locked;  if  you  vote  1|  votes  each  you  can  vote 
two  keys,  if  you  vote  one  vote  each  you  can  vote  three 
keys,  but  that  is  all  out  of  the  eight  keys  for  which  the 
machine  might  be  set.  You  could  not  have  more  than 
three  or  two  according  to  the  Avay  in  which  you  voted. 
The  balance  of  the  keys  would  remain  locked,  the  fact 
that  they  must  remain  locked  pulls  the  party  locks  so 
that  they  cannot  be  operated.     To  overcome  that  you 


398  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 

must  make  a  special  adjustment  in  the  party  lock  for 
every  election,  you  have  to  disconnect  it,  so  to  speak, 
the  two  keys,  that  is  the  keys  outside  of  the  straiglit 
ticket,  for  that  party,  from  the  party-lever.  If  the  party 
has  nominated  two  candidaes  he  will  connect  up  two  keys 
counting  one  and  one-half  votes  each  to  the  party-lever, 
and  must  disconnect  all  of  the  other  keys  belonging  to 
that  party  from  the  party-lever.  If  the  party  has  nom- 
inated three  candidates  then  you  must  connect  up  to  the 
party  lever  the  three  candidates  that  have  been  nominated 
by  that  party  and  disconnect  all  of  the  other  keys  in 
that  party  row  from  the  party-lever,  otherwise  the  party- 
lever  will  not  operate.  Now  in  the  election  last  fall  that 
cumulative  vote  came  in  one  part  of  the  machine  and  in 
the  election  two  years  from  now  it  would  occur  in  a  dif- 
ferent part  of  the  machine  so  that  the  provision  that  was 

1824  made  on  the  party  lever  or  party  bars  for  that  election 
would  necessarily  have  to  be  different  from  what  it  would 
be  for  the  next  election.  I  understood  that  some  judges 
are  elected  in  this  state  at  intervals  of  six  years,  is  that 
the  extreme? 

Q.  That  is  right.  A.  There  are  candidates  for  four 
and  there  are  candidates  for  two,  and  that  rotation  of 
candidates  keeps  the  sequence  of  candidates  in  the  se- 
quence of  offices  recurring  in  different  arrangements, 
so  that  the  arrangement  that  is  made  for  the  ticket  in 
this  year  would  not  be  susceptible  for  the  ticket  two  years 
hence.  I  will  say  that  the  party  bars  that  are  used 
on  the  Empire  machine,  that  are  otherwise  similar  in  con- 
struction to  these,  are  bars  that  are  cut  just  as  I  cut 
this  strip  of  paper,  it  is  a  solid  bar  and  its  teeth  are  ar- 
ranged on  there.  The  bar  runs  from  one  end  of  that 
machine  to  the  other,  and  it  has  teeth  at  intervals  on  the 
bar.  It  is  possible  to  make  a  bar  in  which  these  teeth 
are  detachable,  but  if  they  are  detachable  there  is  the 
danger  they  will  work  loose  in  the  election  and  if  they 
are  removed  for  one  election  they  may  not  get  back  for 

1825  the  next.  It  adds  a  complex  proposition  to  the  setting 
of  the  machine,  and  that  I  believe,  Avould  be  more  com- 
plex than  anything  else  that  has  yet  been  discussed  in 
connection  with  the  preparation  of  these  machines  for. 
elections.  If  these  bars  were  to  be  used  on  Illinois  ma- 
chines, it  would  be  my  recommendation  that  the  bars  be 
removed  from  the  machine  in  each  election  and  that  a 


Party  Lever  and  Cumulative  Voting.  399 

special  bar  be  inserted  in  eacli  machine  for  each  elec- 
tion, because  I  believe  that  would  be  the  only  safe  way 
to  do  it.  If  a  single  one  of  these  lugs  or  teeth  were  to 
get  out  of  place  during  the  election  there  would  be  proper 
cause  for  the  criticism  of  the  election  or  election  ma- 
chines in  Illinois.  What  is  more,  if  they  are  left  off  the 
bars  we  might  hear  from  the  last  three  experts,  there 
would  be  that  possibility  of  the  custodian  leaving  one  or 
more  of  them  off  designedly,  these  party  bars  could  only 
be  removed  from  the  machine  through  a  hole  at  the  end 
of  the  case.  If  you  will  look  at  the  case  of  that  machine 
you  will  see  near  the  bottom  of  it  a  cover  plate,  that 
plate  covers  a  hole  in  the  side  of  the  machine  through 
which  the  resetting  bar  was  inserted  after  the  machine 
had  other\vise  been  finished,  but  that  resetting  bar  could 
not  be  put  into  the  machine  until  all  of  the  interlocking 
devices  and  straps  have  been  put  in,  then  the  resetting 
bar  goes  through  the  slot  in  the  bottom  of  the  machine, 
and  then  there  must  be  a  hole  put  in  the  side  of  the  ma- 
chine to  get  that  bar  in.    If  a  party-lever  machine  was 

1826  designed  for  the  €ity  of  Chicago,  I  would  say  that 
a  bar  would  have  to  be  made  especially  for  every  elec- 
tion, which  would  have  to  be  put  in  the  machine  that 
way  and  connected  up  with  the  party-lever  and  you  would 
not  know  how  to  prepare  those  bars  for  the  machine  until 
after  the  nominations  had  been  closed,  and  until,  in  fact, 
after  all  of  the  legal  questions  that  might  be  incident  to 
the  printing  of  the  ballot  had  been  settled  by  the  courts, 
and  sometimes  those  details  are  delayed  within,  say,  ten 
days  of  the  election.  The  ballots  cannot  be  given  to  the 
printer  for  printing  until  that  late  date,  although  the 
law  may  provide  for  nominations  thirty  days  in  advance 
of  election.  Still,  these  controversies  arising  over  the 
nominations  of  candidates  might  come  in,  and  in  the  last 
moment  interfere  with  the  preparation  of  the  machine 
until  the  court  has  passed  on  those  questions.  Such  a 
question  might  be  very  easily  raised  as  to  the  legality  of 
the  nomination  of  the  candidates  for  Assembly  as  to 
whether  there  were  two  or  three  nominated,  especially 
when  they  are  nominated  by  petition. 

1827  The  Empire  company  manufactured  a  machine  with  a 
party-lever,  but  Illinois  is  the  only  state  that  has  cumu- 
lative voting  which  is  the  objection  to  building  a  voting 
machine  with  a  party-lever  for  Illinois. 


400  No  Advantage  Ufdimited  Inspections. 

1828  Witness  further  describes  the  difficulties  of  construct- 
ing a  voting  machine  with  a  party-lever  adapted  to  meet- 
ing the  variations  in  cumulative  voting. 

An  authoritative  statement  as  to  where  the  cumulative 
ballot  would  have  to  be  located  on  the  voting  machine 
was  made  to  County  Judge  Einaker  in  1907  when  the 
matter  was  discussed  at  great  length. 

1829  On  the  subject  of  limited  number  of  inspections  by 
the  judges,  the  witness  testified  that  the  Empire  Com- 
pany owns  the  Dean  patent  on  locks  for  limiting  inspec- 
tion but  does  not  use  them  on  the  machines  it  manufac- 
tures. 

Witness  knows  of  no  advantage  to  limited  inspec- 
tions. 

1831  If  all  the  judges  are  not  at  the  polling  place  until  after 
the  hour  of  the  beginning  of  the  election  you  could  not 
inspect  the  machine  under  a  limited  inspection  system. 

The  Dean  machine,  which  at  first  used  the  limited  in- 
spection lock,  got  rid  of  them  very  quickly  on  account 
of  this  sort  of  trouble. 

1832  The  locks  used  on  the  Empire  machine  are  not  made 
by  the  company,  they  are  purchased. 

The  rubber  band  can  be  used  more  successfully  on  a 
party-lever  than  on  a  party-key  machine,  because  the 
voter  votes  all  the  keys  at  once  and  is  less  apt  to  notice 
a  restriction  on  one  of  them.  In  witness'  opinion,  the 
rubber  band  is  not  considered  a  practical  method  of 
fraud. 

1833  The  Columbia  voting  machine  had  a  key  which,  when 
voted,  made  a  complete  revolution.  The  movement  was 
partly  the  result  of  the  impulse  given  to  it  by  the  voter 
and  partly  to  an  impulse  communicated  by  the  mechanism 
of  the  machine,  which  at  the  same  time  moved  the  keys 
not  voted  60  or  80  or  90  degrees  of  a  circle,  and  then  back 
again  to  their  original  position. 

1834  Witness  does  not  think  this  design  of  voting  key  is 
better  adapted  to  prevent  the  use  of  rubber  bands  than 
the  Empire  key.  The  voting  key  on  the  Empire  machine 
has  been  made  smaller  and  smoother  for  the  convenience 
of  the  voter.  The  witness  has  never  attached  any  great 
significance  to  restricting  devices  like  wire  clips,  pins 
and  rubbers. 


Testimony  of  F.  Keiper.  401 

Morning  Session. 
Thursday,  August  7,  1913. 

1837  Fbank  Kkipee  resumed  the  stand: 

Further  Direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  McEtven. 

1839  Witness  has  had  considerable  experience  in  the  hold- 
ing of  elections  with  voting  machines  at  Rochester,  New 
York,  at  Middletown,  New  York,  at  Buffalo,  New  York, 
Cornellsville,  New  York,  San  Jose,  California,  and  Terre 
Haute,  Indiana.  Witness  was  never  at  South  Bend,  In- 
diana, for  an  election. 

1840  Restricting  devices  which  prevent  action  of  the  key- 
have  never  been  used  at  an  election  where  the  witness 
was  present  and  had  personal  means  of  observation. 

1841  Counters  cannot  be  changed  without  taking  a  machine 
apart.  They  are  standard  decimal  counters  made  by 
Veeder  of  Hartford. 

1842  The  Veeder  counter  is  generally  used;  it  was  used  by 
the  Columbia  and  Dean  machines,  the  Standard  and 
United  States  Standard. 

Witness  cannot  see  any  way  of  lightening  a  machine 
of  the  Empire  type  without  sacrificing  efficiency. 

In  the  course  of  its  development  it  has  been  substan- 
tiall}^  reduced  in  weight,  and  according  to  witness  pres- 
ent knowledge  of  voting  machines  has  reached  about  the 
limit  of  lightness. 
1S43  Other  means  than  the  power  of  the  voter  on  a  lever 
have  been  used  to  actuate  the  mechanism  of  voting  ma- 
chines. 

1844  Air,  electricity  and  liquids.  These  are  not  practical, 
because  air,  electricity  and  liquids  are  not  positive  in 
their  action  and  are  condemned  for  the  same  reason  that 
operation  by  springs  would  be  condemned. 

The  question  how  far  a  voting  key  should  be  moved 
in  order  to  register  a  vote  has  been  carefully  considered 
by  the  witness. 

The  size  of  the  key  depends  on  the  size  of  the  ma- 
chine. 

1845  The  size  of  the  key  on  the  Empire  machine  is  deter- 
mined by  the  size  of  the  machine  itself  and  has  been 
made  as  small  as  the  convenience  of  the  voter,  the  print- 
ing of  the  ballot  label  and  the  dimensions  of  the  inter- 
locking mechanism  will  permit. 


402  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 

1846  "A.  The  channel  that  has  been  referred  to  is  the 
channel  in  which  the  labels  are  held,  this  channel  is  made 
purposely  deep  so  that  it  will  lap  the  ballot  labels  in 
place;  if  the  channel  was  not  made  purposely  deep  and 
was  not  provided  with  the  locking  mechanism  in  it,  which 
is  accommodated  with  that  check,  the  ballot  labels  would 
not  be  locked,  and  they  could  be  moved,  under  the  label 
holder  so  that  the  label  for  judge,  or  for  Governor, 
rather,  might  be  moved  down  to  the  Secretary  of  State 
key,  which,  of  course,  would  put  the  machine  out  of  ad- 
justment and  would  mislead  the  voter  in  voting.  Now, 
the  front  of  the  machine  is  composed  of  a  steel  plate 
which  is  pierced  with  a  number  of  holes  in  which  the 
keys  are  pivoted,  and  the  keys  have  heads  in  them  which 
stand  up  from  the  keys  proper,  so  that  the  key  itself  will 
swing  free  over  that  ballot  label,  and  this,  of  course, 
leaves  a  space  between  the  back  of  the  key  and  the  plate, 
that  label  holder  or  channel,  as  you  speak  of  it,  could  not 

1847  be  made  thinner  and  lie  closer  to  the  front  plate  of  the 
machine  without  sacrificing  the  important  advantage  of 
locking  the  ballot  labels  in  it,  it  could  not  be  sunk  in  the 
front  plate  without  greatly  increasing  the  cost  and  diffi- 
culty of  building  the  machine  itself,  and  I  don't  think — 
wait  a  minute, — read  the  question  again. 

(Question  read.) 

"A. — I  don't  think  they  can  be  left  off,  and  either  pre- 
serve the  efficiency  of  the  machine  or  comply  with  the 
law;  that  is,  it  would  not  be  practicable." 

The  Empire  machines  have  all  been  manufactured  at 
Jamestown,  New  York,  as  also  were  all  the  United  States 
Standard  machines. 

If  an  Empire  machine  bore  a  name-plate  with  the 
words  "Rochester,  New  York,"  it  was  because  the  offices 
of  the  company  were  located  at  Rochester,  New  York,  up 
to  1910.    They  are  now  located  at  Jamestown. 

1848  Witness  is  asked  as  to  the  adaptability  of  the  Empire 
machine  to  primary  elections  in  Chicago  and  as  to  the 
grouping  of  candidates  and  says, 

"A.  I  think  that  100  names  can  be  carried  in  one 
group  and  probably  more." 

"Q.  Do  you  think  you  could  put  on  the  number  of 
names  that  were  printed  on  a  ballot  in  the  1912  primary, 
assuming  that  there  were  about  450  names.  A.  It  de- 
pends on  how  those  names  were  distributed  among  the 
parties.    If  you  will  let  me  see  the  items  of  the  distribu- 


I 


The  Empire  Machine  in  Primary  Elections.  403 

tion  of  the  names  among  the  parties  I  will  tell  you,  other- 
wise I  will  not.    There  was  such  a  list  here  that  I  saw." 

1849  The  witness  states  the  limitations  of  the  machine  as 
to  use  in  primary  elections, 

"A.  In  a  primary  election,  each  party  must  have  at 
least  one  party  row  and  it  must  have  as  many  more  as 
are  necessary  to  carry  all  of  the  candidates,  that  may  be 
nominated.  The  small  parties  that  will  make  few  nomi- 
nations would  be  accommodated  with  a  single  row  each, 
other  parties  that  make  a  large  number  of  nomina- 
tions would  have  to  have  two  or  more  party  rows,  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  nominations  which  they  might 
make,  and  the  number  of  nominations  in  a  single  office 
might  determine  the  number  of  party  rows  that  any  one 
party  might  require.  If  the  Republican  Party  had  44 
nominations  for  the  office  of  County  Commissioner  and 
four  party  lines  were  given  to  that  party,  then  those  44 
names  would  have  to  be  put  on  11  office  rows  and  the  11 
office  lines  grouped  in  one  group  and  that  would  work  on 
that  machine  all  right. 

"Q.  Will  you  just  explain  what  an  office  line  is,  as  it 
has  been  used  here?  A.  An  office  line  is  a  single  column 
of  keys  on  the  machine,  there  are  9  keys  on  an  office  line, 
plus  the  slide  on  top. 

"Q.  An  office  line  includes  all  of  the  keys  in  that  line? 
A.   It  does. 

1850  "Q.  If  the  ballot  were  too  large  for  one  machine,  is 
there  any  way  it  could  be  spread  on  two  machines?  A. 
Why,  each  party  could  be  put  on  a  separate  machine. 

"Q.  Each  group  of  parties  on  each  machine  ?  A.  Yes, 
the  Republicans  with  several  of  the  minor  parties  could 
be  put  on  one  machine  and  the  Democrats  with  several 
minor  parties  on  another  machine,  and  both  machines 
could  be  worked  simultaneously  by  the  different  voters." 
1854  The  primary  lock-out  on  the  Empire  machine  could  be 
arranged  so  as  to  be  worked  by  the  voter,  the  witness 
thinks  the  present  construction  affords  sufficient  protec- 
tion against  the  judges'  wrongful  act. 

They  are  as  large  as  they  need  be  for  convenient 
operation  and  to  make  them  easily  visible  to  everybody; 
if  made  larger  they  might  be  broken  off  in  handling. 

Some  parts  connected  with  the  paper  roll  mechanism 
could  be  changed  without  the  custodian's  key  and  some 
parts  in  the  counter  compartment  could  be  changed  with- 
out the  custodian's  key  by  breaking  a  seal. 


404  "Paper  Zero"  Fraud  Easily  Detected. 

1855  "Q.  Well,  what  of  them  are  protected  by  the  key? 
A.  The  setting  of  the  counters  and  the  setting  of  the 
grouping  pins  and  the  setting  of  the  wings  on  the  lock- 
out that  is  operated  by  the  ticket  key  and  the  lock-out 
that  is  ordinarily  called  the  'woman's  lock-out'  and  the 
lock-out  for  locking  the  unused  party  rows,  those  are  all 
controlled  by  the  custodian's  key." 

The  primary  lock-out  is  controlled  by  a  seal.  These 
seals  bear  evidence  of  whether  they  remain  intact  and 
are  used  by  railroads  all  over  the  country. 

1856  The  Independent  column  can  be  locked  if  it  is  desired 
by  wiring  it  from  within. 

If  the  interlocking  straps  of  any  two  keys  are  wired 
together  neither  can  be  moved. 

Witness  saw  the  so-called  rough  spots  on  the  Em- 
pire machine  at  the  La  Salle  Hotel.  They  were  at  the 
interlocking  channel  at  the  bottom  of  the  machine,  and 
witness  believes  they  were  due  to  something  that  was 
done  to  the  machine  at  the  factory. 

1857  They  had  the  outline  of  something  splashed  on  the 
machine  and  dropped  and  were  too  deep-seated  to  be  of 
recent  origin. 

Witness  inspected  the  counters  on  that  machine  with 
a  pointed  instrument.  He  timed  himself  and  went  over 
all  the  counter-wheels  in  a  party-row  in  three  minutes 
and  six  seconds.  Tested  each  wheel  separately.  213 
wheels  in  all. 

1858  That  is  about  1/10  of  the  machine.  Later  witness 
used  a  3-pronged  fork  and  tested  three  wheels  simul- 
taneously.— He  made  this  inspection  three  or  four  times 
as  fast  as  by  the  other  method. 

Witness  does  not  regard  paper  zeros  as  a  practical 
method  of  fraud. 

1859  Witness  produces  the  ordinary  fork  used,  an  ordinary 
oyster  fork.  It  can  be  easily  used  with  the  prongs  bent 
to  fit  so  as  to  strike  the  centers  exactly. 

Witness  has  heard  of  other  restrictive  devices  used 
during  the  present  hearing  on  the  machine,  except  the 
block  pins. 

The  paper  zero  device  is  old  and  the  criminal  sections 
of  the  law  especially  provide  for  it.  * 

Witness  describes  the  mechanical  movements  in  the 
mechanism  of  the  machine  Avhich  are  caused  by  casting 
a  straight  ticket  and  a  split  ticket  respectively. 


Empire  Machine  Meets  Illinois  Law.  405 

1861  Witness  has  read  the  statute  of  the  State  of  Illinois 
which  specifies  the  requirements  of  the  voting  machine. 

1862  Witness  says  that  the  Empire  machine  complies  with 
all  the  requirements  of  the  statute. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  We  have  here  a  portion  of  the 
ballot  of  1912  in  the  primary  of  that  year;  I  was  mistaken 
as  to  the  number,  the  number  is  594;  the  ballot  of  1908 
was  the  one  I  had  in  mind;  that  was  considerable  less  in 
size.  Taking  the  Democratic  ballot,  can  you  readily  tell 
by  looking  at  that  how  much  of  the  machine  that  would 
take  up ! 

(Witness  examines  the  ballot  handed  him.) 

The  Witness.     What  is  the  question! 

(Question  read.) 

A.  I  think  it  would  take  up  six  party  rows  on  the  ma- 
chine. 

Q.  Have  you  counted  the  number  of  names  on  that 
ballot?  A.  There  are  303  names,  and  place  for  one 
more. 

Mr.  McBwEN.  That  gives  the  Democratic  Party  over 
half  of  the  ballot. 

Q.     Now,  will  you  look  at  the  Kepublican  ballot  for 

1863  the  same  election  and  state  how  much  space  that  would 
take.  A.  I  will  add  to  the  preceding  answer  that  I  want 
to  further  consider  this  Democratic  ballot  carefully  be- 
fore I  would  want  to  say  that  it  would  not  take  seven;  I 
believe  from  the  calculation  that  I  have  already  made 
that  it  would  not  take  7,  that  6  would  do,  but  I  am  quite 
sure  that  six  would  be  needed. 

The  Chairman.     For  the  Democratic  ticket! 

The  Witness.  Yes.  If  you  want  me  to  take  the  time  I 
■will  see  whether  seven  will  be  needed,  but  it  will  take 
more  calculation. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  suggest  that  you  iiot  take  any  more 
time  on  that,  but  this  noon  you  can  check  over  your  fig- 
ures and  if  there  is  any  correction  to  be  made  we  can 
do  it  afterwards. 

The  Witness.     Wliat  is  the  question? 

(Question  read.) 

A.  It  would  probably  require  three  party  rows,  it 
might  be  put  on  two,  but  I  doubt  it. 

The  Chairman.     Q.     How  many? 

A.     It  will  probably  require  three. 

The  Chairman.    Q.     Six  for  the  Democratic,  you  say? 


406        1912  Primary  Ticket  Requires  Two  Machines. 

A.  Yes.  (Witness  examines  Republican  ballot  again.) 
I  will  say  positively  it  would  require  three. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    Q.    It  will  require  three? 

A.    Yes. 

Q.  Will  you  step  down  this  way,  Mr.  Keiper,  and  look 
at  the  Prohibition  Party  primary  ballot  of  that  primary ; 
these  are  the  official  records ;  and  say  whether  that  would 
go  on  one  party  row.  A.  I  think  it  would  all  go  on  one 
party  row. 

Q.  Look  at  the  Socialist  Primary  Ballot.  A.  I  think 
it  would  all  go  on  one  party  row. 

1864  The  Chairman.    Q.    There  were  only  four  parties  were 
there,  Judge,  in  that  primary! 

A.     Four  is  all. 

Senator  Landee.  There  are  six  on  the  machine;  were 
there  only  four  at  the  primary  instead  of  six! 

Mr.  McEwEN.  There  are  only  four  apparently  in  the 
primary.  Mr.  Deneen,  will  there  be  any  dispute  that 
this  contains  the  official  record? 

Mr.  Deneen.  Well,  I  will  admit  that  the  Prohibition 
and  Socialist  parties  nominated  a  full  complement  of 
officers  and  no  more;  a  straight  ticket,  we  will  call  it. 
The  Progressives  had  no  ticket,  of  course;  what  about 
the  Socialist  Labor! 

Mr.  McEwEN.     They  were  by  petition. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  think  we  will  agree  on  that;  we  will 
look  it  up  and  if  there  is  any  difiference  we  can  correct  it. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    That  is  subject  to  correction. 

Mr.  Deneen.    I  think  that  is  right. 

Mr.  McEwen.  Q.  Now,  the  sum  total  of  your  answers 
on  these  four  parties  is  that  it  would  require  six  for  the 
Democratic,  six  party  columns  for  the  Democratic  ticket, 
three  for  the  Republican,  one  for  the  Prohibition  and 
one  for  the  Socialist? 

A.     That  is  true. 

Q.     Eleven  party  columns,  that  would  require  two  ma- 

1865  chines?     A.     Eleven  party  row^s. 

Mr.  McEwen.    Eleven  party  rows,  I  should  say. 

Q.  Will  you  briefly  state  just  how  you  make  the  com- 
putations say,  for  County  Commissioner,  take  the  largest 
group,  take  that  Democratic  group  of  81  names.  A.  The 
computation  cannot  be  made  with  reference  to  one  group 
of  the  ticket ;  it  must  be  made  Avith  reference  to  all  of  the 
groups  on  the  ticket  so  that  you  will  keep  within  the 


Testimony    of  F.  Keiper.  407 

number  of  office  lines  that  are  on  the  machine.  The  ticket 
has  to  be  limited  so  it  will  not  run  over  the  70  office  lines, 
and  that  means  that  enough  party  rows  have  to  be  used 
so  as  to  keep  within  that  limit. 

Q.  Now,  if  you  figure  on  using  five  party  rows  for  the 
purpose  of  a  Democratic  Primary  Ballot,  you  would — 

Mr.  Deneen.    Six  you  said,  did  you  notf 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  If  you  figure  on  five  party  rows  the 
machine  would  have  to  have  75  office  lines,  which  it  does 
not  have,  and  to  come  within  the  70  office  lines,  which 
the  machine  does  have,  why  you  would  have  to  use  an- 
other party  line  just  on  account  of  that  surplus  of  six. 

A.     Surplus  of  five  office  lines. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Which  would  exceed  the  capacity  of  the 
machine,  if  you  used  but  five  party  rows,  and  if  the  Dem- 

1866  ocratic  and  Republican  ballots  are  both  put  on  the  same 
machine,  why  the  ballots  must  be  figured  together  so 
that  the  same  number  of  office  rows  that  are  given  to 
the  County  Commissioners  of  the  Democratic  Party  will 

1867  answer  for  the  candidates  for  County  Commissioners  on 
the  Eepublican  ticket  in  the  number  of  party  rows  that 
are  allotted  to  the  Eepublican  Party.  Now,  these  ballots 
will  work  together  on  the  same  machine  because  the 
County  Commissioners  are  only  14  in  number  and  they 
would  easily  go  within  the  14  office  lines,  that  would  be 
allotted  to  the  County  Commissioners  on  the  Democratic 
ticket,  that  is,  in  the  Republican  Party  you  would  have 
three  times  14  spaces  for  County  Commissioners,  which 
would  be  42,  and  there  was  only  14  names  to  put  in  those 
spaces. 

Representative  Jayne.  Fourteen  names  on  both 
tickets. 

A.  There  is  only  14  names  on  the  Republican  ticket 
for  County  Commissioner  and  14  names  on  the  Demo- 
cratic ticket,  and  by  reason  of  the  aggregate  you  would 
have  to  make  the  Democratic  party — you  have  to  give  up 
42  keys,  you  have  only  14  names  to  put  on  it. 

Senator  Landee.  Would  not  it  require  another  ma- 
chine, or  wouldn't  you  have  to  remodel  the  mechanism  of 
the  machine  to  group  them?  Every  party  lever  that  you 
lock  out  the  party  with  now  would  have  to  be  mechanically 
rearranged,  the  whole  machine,  or  else  you  could  not  do 
it  with  your  party  lines  that  you  have  on  the  machine 
now! 


408  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 


<< 


'A.     Yes — read  the  question. 
(Question  read.) 
1868    "A.     It  would  not  have  to  be  changed. 

"Q.     Have  to  be  a  new  machine? 

"Mr.  McEwBN.    The  answer  was  that  it  would  not. 

"Senator  Landee.  Wouldn't  it  even  in  taking  care  of 
the  Democratic  and  Republican  party  tickets — wouldn't 
the  mechanism  in  the  machine  have  to  be  rearranged 
and  changed  from  what  it  is  now  intended  and  made  for? 

"A.  Not  a  bit;  as  the  machine  is  built  it  will  carry 
those  two  ballots  together. 

"Q.  It  will  carry  them  off  your  party  line,  key,  but 
your  lock-out  device,  the  different  devices,  would  have  to 
be  changed,  wouldn't  they?    A.    Not  a  particle. 

"Q.  If  you  gave  six  columns  for  one  you  would  have 
to  lift  six  columns  to  allow  you  to  vote  any  one  of  those 
six  columns?  A.  That  is  all  provided  and  adjusted  on 
the  end  of  the  machine  for  a  vote. 

"Q.  Yes,  you  have  the  lock-outs  from  each  bar?  A. 
And  you  can  group  six  of  those  bars  so  that  they  will  all 
be  released  simultaneously,  and  those  six  party  rows  will 
be  released  simultaneously.  The  lockout  is  made  in  that 
way  so  that  it  can  be  changed  by  simply  throwing  these 
in  and  out,  varying  the  conditions,  so  that  the  machine 
could  be  entered  between  those  two  parts.  The  first  in- 
side party  rows  would  be  given  to  the  Democratic  Party 
and  would  be  released  when  the  lever  was  set  on  position 
1,  and  the  three  bottom  party  rows  would  be  released 
when  the  lever  was  put  on  position  2. 

Q.  And  still  that  would  require  a  rearrangement  of 
the  machine?  A.  Why,  just  simply  setting  these  parts, 
that  is  all  that  are  to  be  set.  I  can  make  that  change  in- 
side of  half  a  minute,  using  what  is  regularly  on  the 
machine. 

Q.  Then  you  can  group  all  the  machine  into  one  party 
if  you  wish?    A.    Oh,  yes ;  yes,  indeed. 

Q.  But  how  could  you  make  the  two  Commissioners 
run  them.  Republican  and  Democratic  on  the  same  line 
and  lock  them  out?  A.  They  have  to  be  on  the  same  of- 
fice line. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    Q.    Have  to  line  up  and  down? 

A.  They  have  to  be  on  the  same  office  lines  up  and 
down. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Vertical? 


Testimony  of  F.  Keiper.  409 

A.  That  is,  the  Democratic  Commissioners  have  to  be 
under  the  Republican  Commissioners,  or  vice  versa,  or 

1869  whichever  would  be  the  sequence  on  the  machine,  but 
that  would  be  controlled  by  those  different  lock-out  bars, 
so  when  operating  on  the  one  you  could  not  operate  on 
the  other. 

Representative  Jayne.  I  wonder  if  he  means  running 
the  other  way? 

The  WiiWEss.    One  man  on  six  lines  in  one  group. 

Q.  How  would  you  get  89  lines  in  one  vote?  A.  By 
making  the  grouping  big  enough.  It  is  simply  a  matter 
of  correcting  our  grouping  point.  In  this  case  you  would 
have  to  use  14  office  lines  for  that  one  group  to  accom- 
modate the  81  names  on  the  Democratic  ticket. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  The  office  lines  being  vertical  and  the 
party  lines  being  horizontal? 

A.  And  then  you  would  cover  all  three  keys  there  in 
that  group. 

The  Chairman.    That  would  be  necessary. 

A.     Beg  pardon. 

Q.  That  would  be  necessary?  A.  Yes,  sir;  it  would 
be  necessary;  you  have  to  sacrifice  some  of  the  keys  in 
order  to  get  all  of  the  group  of  one  or  the  other  on. 

Q.  How  many  names  do  you  figure  out  on  the  two 
ballots,  Republican  and  Democratic! 

Mr.  McEwEN.  You  did  not  give  an  answer  on  the  Re- 
publican; you  did  on  the  Democratic  but  not  the  Repub- 
lican. 

1870  Senator  Landee.  I  mean  the  total  names  on  the  ballot, 
on  the  two  ballots. 

A.    437. 

Q.     Your  machine  contains  700?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Representative  Jones.  Let  me  ask  you,  you  say  it 
takes  six  rows  for  the  Democratic  ticket? 

A.    True. 

Q.    And  six  rows  crosswise  of  the  machine?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  In  the  event  that  the  Democratic  ticket.  Primary 
ticket,  was  as  large  again  as  that,  then  what  are  you 
going  to  do?  A.  The  Democratic  ticket  now  has  303 
keys. 

Q.  Suppose  you  had  606?  A.  It  would  still  be  in 
the  capacity  of  the  machine. 

Q.    What  is  the  capacity  of  the  machine  ?    A.    700. 

Q.     Suppose  you  had  a  thousand  names  on  the  Dem- 


410  Testimony  of  F.  Kciper. 

ocratic  ticket!  A.  Then  a  machine  would  have  to  be 
built. 

Q.  Then  you  have  no  assurance  that  vote  would  be 
.  a  thousand  ?  A.  No.  I  have  to  read  the  law  first  before 
I  answer  that  question  intelligently,  though. 

Mr.  Denben.  May  I  ask  you,  the  machine  takes  care 
of  630  names,  only  nine  party  keys? 

A.     That  is  right. 

Q.     630  is  the  capacity  of  the  machine  as  they  call  it. 

1871  If  there  are  631,  how  are  you  going  to  get  it  on  that 
machine?  A.  Get  another  machine,  a  bigger  one.  You 
can't  get  it  on  this  machine. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  That  is,  if  you  had  2,000  in  a  mixed  pri- 
mary, you  would  still  have  to  get  another  machine. 

A.  True,  but  you  could  put  half  of  the  office  on  one 
machine  and  half  on  the  other. 

Q.  So  that  the  tickets  could  be  accommodated  in  that 
way  if  you  wanted  to  separate  them. 

Representative  Jaynb.    By  voting  on  both  machines? 

A.  Yes,  voting  on  both  machines;  voting  half  of  this 
ticket  on  one  machine  and  half  on  the  other. 

Eepresentative  Jones.  Do  you  think  that  complies 
with  the  law? 

A.  I  have  not  seen  any  law  regulating  our  voting  ma- 
chines in  primary  elections  in  this  state. 

Senator  Landee.  Do  you  think  on  those  407  Demo- 
cratic names  a  man  could  pick  out  and  vote  them  all  in  a 
minute  on  six  lines,  a  man,  I  mean  an  average  man,  not 
an  expert. 

A.    Will  you  read  the  question? 
(Question  read.) 

A.     I  will  have  to  count  over  something  here  again. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Is  that  an  average  Chicago  man  or  an 
average  State  of  Illinois  man  or  an  average  IT.  S.  man? 

1872  Mr.  Deneen.  Well,  if  he  would  use  that  machine  he 
would  be  an  average  voter. 

A.     I  don't  know,  he  has  got  to  move  58  keys. 
Senator  Landee.     He  would  have  to  vote  between  40 
and  50  keys  and  he  would  have  to  pick  them  out. 
Mr.  Deneen.     58  keys. 
Senator  Landee.     Q.     I  mean  he  would  have  to  pick 

1873  them  out.  Don't  you  think  that  would  require  an  ex- 
pert typewriter  that  had  learned  the  keyboard  tirst  of  the 
machine  to  get  them  all  in  that  space  of  time? 


Voting  Machine  Not  Mentioned  in  Primary  Law.      411 

A.  My  experience  with  primary  elections  is  limited, 
I  cannot  recall  that  I  have  ever  been  in  attendance  on  a 
primary  election. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  was  going  to  say  that  that  answer  was 
not  responsive  to  Senator  Landee's  question,  he  asked 
him  whether  he  could  move  58  keys  in  a  minute,  he  said 
his  experience  in  primary  laws  is  limited,  the  question 
is,  could  he  move  58  in  a  minute.    Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Mr.  McEwEN.    And  pick  them  out  of  six  columns. 

Mr.  Deneen.     That  is  the  question,  in  six  rows. 

Senator  Landee.  I  asked  this  question  because  he  men- 
tioned the  other  day  that  the  machine  complied  with  the 
law,  and  in  complying  with  the  law  said  it  must  be  voted 
in  one  minute,  and  if  they  cannot  vote  for  these  candi- 
dates, for  all  candidates  in  the  six  columns  in  one  min- 
ute, then  it  does  not  fully  comply  with  the  law. 

A.  I  have  not  seen  any  primary  laws  regulating  vot- 
ing machines. 

Senator  Landee.  Q.  No,  but  that  would  come  in  un- 
der the  general  election  law. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  That  is  a  debatable  proposition,  prob- 
ably, that  question  is  raised  here. 

Senator  Landee.     That  is  all. 

Eepresentative  Jones.  Q.  Now  let  me  ask  you,  the 
intention  of  this  machine  is  to  use  it  in  general  elections 
and  not  to  use  it  in  primary  elections'? 

A.  It  is  the  intention  to  use  this  machine,  this  machine 
is  built  so  that  it  can  be  used  in  both  kinds  of.  elections. 

Q.  You  think  it  would  have  to,  do  you,  to  comply 
with  the  Illinois  law?  A.  I  do  not  know,  so  far  as  I 
have  been  able  to  learn  the  Illinois  Primary  Law  makes 
no  special  provision  for  the  use  of  voting  machines  in 
primaries. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  to 
build  a  machine  that  could  be  used  in  general  elections 
and  also  in  primaries?     A.     No. 

Q.  You  bid  on  these  specifications,  did  you  not,  under 
1874  these  specifications?  A.  I  have  not  read  the  specifica- 
tions. 

The  Chaieman.    You  did  not  write  them,  did  you? 

A.  I  did  not  write  the  specifications  and  I  do  not 
recall  having  read  them  except  in  a  casual  way,  and  I 
have  got  no  recollection  as  to  what  is  in  them. 


412  Should  Machines  Be  Used  at  Primaries^ 

Representative  Jones.  You  realize  tliat  with  the  un- 
certainty as  to  the  number  of  candidates  that  may  be  in 
a  primary — you  understand  that  that  is  unlimited,  do 
you  not? 

1875  A.    Yes. 

Q.  You  realize  that  with  that  uncertainty  that  the 
probabilities  are  this  machine  would  not  be  large  enough 
to  take  care  of  one  party!  A.  That  is  possible,  I  would 
not  say  probable. 

Q.  Well,  it  is  possible,  that  is  your  answer?  Then 
how  can  you  under  the  law  in  Illinois  permit  a  man  to 
vote  on  two  machines  to  vote  one  ticket?  A.  I  do  not 
know  what  the  law  is  on  that. 

Q.  Well,  if  it  run  over  the  capacity  of  this  machine 
he  would  have  to  vote  on  two,  would  not  he?  A.  He 
would  have  to  vote  on  two,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  say  the  other  day  in  answer 
to  Judge  McEwen's  question  that  you  had  written  vot- 
ing machine  laws  for  various  states? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  write  the  law  for  Indiana?  A.  I  helped 
write  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  write,  then,  the  law  for  Illinois?  A. 
No,  sir,  I  had  nothing  to  do  mth  writing  the  law  for 
Illinois. 

Representative  Jones.  You  have  read  the  law  from 
Illinois,  have  you  not? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  believe  I  understood  you  to  say  yesterday  that 
you  worked  in  the  capacity  of  mechanical  engineer  and 
expert  and  an  attorney?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

1876  Q.     Well,  now,  would  not  your  duties  require  that  you 
be  conversant  with  both  of  those  subjects?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  be  in  a  position  to  know  what  the  pri- 
mary law  of  Illinois  is,  what  the  law  relative  to  elections 
of  Illinois  is?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.     You  do  know?     A.     I  have  read  them. 

Q.  What  is  your  conception  then  on  this  machine 
complying  with  the  primary  law  of  Illinois?  A.  I  say 
that  I  cannot  find  that  the  primary  law  of  Illinois  makes 
any  reference  to  the  Use  of  voting  machines. 

Q.  Then  it  is  a  question  in  your  mind  whether  they 
can  be  regularly  used  in  the  primaries  ?  A.  That  is  cor- 
rect. 


Witness  Helped  Write  Voting  Machine  Laws.        413 

Senator  Jayne.  Mr.  Keiper,  you  say  the  last  two 
years  your  time  has  been  occupied  in  investigating  vot- 
ing machines  and  working  on  them,  working  on  inven- 
tions as  you  have  said  in  the  beginning.  Are  there  in- 
ventions enough  to  keep  you  biisy  on  that! 

A.  No,  that  is  a  very  small  part  of  my  work,  I  have 
not  made  any  inventions  for  several  years  back. 

Q.  You  have  been  writing  on  election  laws  then,  have 
you?    A.    Not  for  several  years  back. 

Q.    Were  you  ever  a  lobbyist?    A.    Never. 

1877  Q.  In  writing  any  of  these  voting  machine  laws,  did 
you  ever  write  the  law  so  it  would  favor  the  Empire 
machine?    A.    Never. 

Q.  Didn't  your  company  replace  the  machines  in 
Kochester,  N.  Y.,  since  these  were  purchased  here?  A. 
And  got  full  price  for  the  machines. 

Q.  And  got  full  price  for  the  machines?  A.  For  the 
new  machines. 

Q.  Why  did  you  take  out  the  old  ones?  A.  Simply 
because  the  city  wanted  to  buy  the  new  ones. 

Q.  They  didn't  make  any  exchange  then,  they  just 
put  the  other  new  machines  in?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  why  the  machine  companies  did  not 
bid  on  the  machines  at  South  Bend,  Ind.,  on  June  24, 
1911?    A.    Will  you  please  read  that  question? 

(Question  read.) 

A.  That  is  my  recollection,  that  they  did  bid  on  them, 
that  is,  others  than  the  Empire  Company. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  there  were  no  companies  bid- 
ding on  the  machines  and  that  they  had  another  letting, 

1878  do  you  recall  that?  A.  Well  then  I  was  not  there  at 
that  time,  I  was  there  a  couple  of  weeks  later  when  the 
bids  were  made,  on  which  I  think  the  contract  was  let. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Winslow  Com- 
pany have  sold  out  to  the  Triumph  Company?  A.  Yes, 
sir,  I  so  understand. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Their  patents  have  been  assigned  to  the 
Empire  Company,  that  is  all  I  know  about  it. 

Q.  To  the  Triumph  Company.  A.  Or  to  the  Triumph 
Company,  I  mean. 

Q.  Eeally,  that  would  only  leave  one  competitor  in 
the  field  for  you,  doesn't  it?    A.     No,  I  would  not  say  so. 

Q.  What  other  machines  would  you  consider  in  the 
field  as  competitors  ?    A.    Why,  the  Triumph  machine. 


414  Helped  Write  Chicago  Contract. 

Q.     The  Triumph  machine?    A.    Yes. 

Q.     That  is  the  one  you  referred  to!    A.    Yes. 

1880  If  the  witness  were  judge  of  election  and  the  machine 
got  out  of  order  he  would  call  for  another  machine  and 
stop  voting  in  the  meanwhile. 

1881  It  is  possible  on  an  Empire  machine  that  a  voter  might 
not  pull  down  a  voting  key  sufficiently  and  so  lose  a 
vote. 

1882  A  sample  ballot  can  be  put  on  the  Empire  machine  with 
paste  instead  of  in  the  channels  as  at  present. 

The  record  is  to  be  made  by  those  who  handle  them  of 
seals  used  by  railroads. 

The  judges  of  election  do  not  need  to  take  any  notice 
of  any  of  the  seals  on  voting  the  Empire  machine  ex- 
cept the  seals  on  the  protective  counter. 
1884     The  witness  has  never  seen  paper  zeros  used  at  an 
election ;  has  heard  them  discussed  in  the  shops. 

When  the  key  is  turned  in  locking  the  inter- 
locking counters,  the  protective  counter  is  advanced  one 
number. 

1886  Witness  cites  a  number  of  frauds  which  can  be  com- 
mitted on  the  ballot  box  election  and  which,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  witness,  cannot  be  committed,  or  are  more  difficult 
of  commitment  on  the  voting  machine,  as  follows:  The 
purchasing  of  votes  and  the  miscounting  of  ballots.  "I 
do  not  believe  that  votes  can  be  purchased  satisfactorily 
where  the  voting  machines  are'  used,  because  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  votes  have  been  delivered  and  as  for 
counting  of  the  votes,  that  is  taken  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  judges  entirely,  because  the  machine  does  the  count- 
ing." 

1887  "The  only  thing  the  judge  has  to  do  is  to  take  off  the 
details  and  add  the  separate  tickets  onto  the  split  ticketfj 
for  each  candidate.  He  does  not  pass  on  the  individual 
ballots." 

Witness  thinks  this  minimizes  the  possibilities  of  error 
and  fraud. 

Witness  helped  write  the  contract  for  the  purchase  of 
the  Empire  voting  machines  for  the  City  of  Chicago. 
He  prepared  it  in  co-operation  with  Mr.  Wheelock  and 
Mr.  Herrick.  He  had  no  other  connection  with  the  voting 
machine  matter  in  Chicago. 

1888  Witness  has  only  looked  at  the  Illinois  primary  lavv 
within  the  past  few  days  and  cannot  find  any  mention  of 
voting  machines  in  it. 


Testimony  of  T.  A,  Boyer.  415 

Afternoon  Session. 
Thursday,  August  7,  1913. 

1896  F^NK  Keiper: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEiven  Continued. 

1898    Witness  is  temporarily  withdrawn  and  gives  place  to  a 
new  witness. 


Thomas  A.  Boyeb: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Besides  at  4458  Emerald  avenue.  Is  Clerk  of  the  Board 
of  Review  and  a  Representative  in  the  General  Assembly 
from  the  Fourth  Senatorial  District. 

Witness  knows  Lloyd  L.  Duke  of  Ottumwa,  Iowa.  Wit- 
ness thinks  Duke  is  the  City  Attorney  of  Ottumwa. 
1899  Witness  talked  with  Duke  on  Decoration  Day  at  Wash- 
ington, Iowa,  about  30  miles  from  Ottumwa. 
1902  "Q.  AVill  you  state  the  conversation  you  had  with 
Mr.  Duke  relating  to  the  contract  for  the  purchasing  of 
these  machines!  A.  After  being  introduced  to  Mr. 
Duke— 

"The  Chairman.    Louder,  Tom. 

"The  Witness.  After  being  introduced  to  Mr.  Duke, 
as  a  Representative  of  the  Illinois  General  Assembly,  he 
made  the  remark  that  he  had  wanted  to  talk  to  somebody 
that  was  ac<iuainted  there,  and  asked  me  if  I  knew  of  the 
chairman,  or  if  I  knew  Mr.  Butts,  and  I  told  him  I  was 
quite  well  acquainted  with  him,  with  the  gentleman,  and 
he  said:  'I  am  interested  in  this  investigation,  that  I 
hear  is  started.'  He  said,  'I  am  attorney  for  three  Ot- 
tumwa men  who  have  a  claim  for  $1,500  against  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company,'  and  he  says,  'I  am  try- 
ing to  collect  it.'  He  says,  'I  believe  I  can  collect  it,  may- 
be, through  a  little  publicity,'  and  he  went — he  made  a 
statement  that  these  three  men  had  come  to  his  office  and 
had  talked  to  him  and  he  had  taken  down  a  statement — 

Q.  What  were  the  names  of  the  men?  A.  John  W. 
Gray,  I  believe,  ex-Chief  of  Police. 

Q.  Of  Ottumwa?  A.  And  Thomas  Pickler,  ex-Mayor 
of  Ottumwa,  and  a  man  named  Newton  Arrison. 


416  The  So-called  Diike  Statement. 

Q.  Was  be  former  City  Clerk  of  Ottumwa?  A.  I 
don't  know  that  lie  mentioned  that. 

Q.  He  resided  in  Ottumwaf  A.  He  resided  in  Ot- 
tumwa. 

Q.  Mr.  Duke  had  taken  down  a  statement  that  they 
had  given  to  him?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  submitted  it  to  anybody?  A.  Yes,  sir;  sub- 
mitted it  to  Charles  Walsh,  of  Ottumwa,  employed  here 
in  Chicago  on  the  Examiner  or  the  American,  I  don't 

1903  know  which,  or  as  he  explained  it,  he  was  employed  by 
Andy  Lawrence. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Duke  give  you  the  papers  to  which  you 
refer?    A.    He  did. 

Q.  You  may  glance  at  this  and  see  if  those  are  the 
papers.    A.    These  are  the  papers. 

Q.     I  will  read  them  and  then  ask  some  questions. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  think  we  ought  to  see  these  papers  be- 
fore they  are  read. 

Mr.  Deneen.     You  may  look  at  them. 
(Papers  handed  counsel.) 

1904  Mr.  McEwEN.  I  object  to  the  use  of  that  statement,  it 
is  not  signed,  its  authenticity  depends  on  hearsay,  it  is 
something  created  in  the  State  of  low^a  by  something  ap- 
parently of  which  we  are  informed  is  a  matter  of  hear- 
say. His  purpose  was  to  give  publicity  and  by  making 
some  effort,  making  it  disagreeable  to  collect  some 
money,  its  purpose,  as  stated  by  the  witness,  as  a  matter 
of  hearsay,  showing  that  feature  of  a  shakedown.  It  is 
hearsay  and  has  nothing  authentic,  nothing  whatever; 
if  evidence  such  as  that  was  admitted  in  the  courts  of 
this  land,  half  the  men  in  public  life  could  be  ruined  by 
the  talk  in  the  saloons  on  Clark  street,  the  saloons  on 
Madison  street,  the  talks  across  the  corner  of  the  bar, 
about  this  fellow  or  that  fellow  and  his  public  and  private 
life  would  not  be  worth  a  straw,  if  such  evidence  as  that, 
such  trash  as  that  could  be  taken  as  a  basis  for  action; 
if  there  is  anybody  believes  that  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  Illinois  would  stultify  itself  by  looking  upon 
such  unauthentic  document  as  that,  hearsay,  drafted  out 
in  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  if  the  prosecutor  here  cannot 
produce  better  and  closer  evidence  than  that  in  the  mat- 
ter of  fraud  and  in  the  matter  of  corruption,  I  think  that 
he  might  better  confess  that  he  had  failed  upon  that  line 
and  cease  the  pursuit  of  it.    I  object  to  its  use,  if  the 


Witness  Received  It  From  L.  L.  Duke.  417 

commission  permits  such  evidence  as  that  I  can  suggest 
better  lawyers  for  the  defense  of  this  case  than  myself, 

1905  men  who  will  pile  the  table  full  of  similar  statements, 
hearsay  and  trash,  by  way  of  defense  or  attacks  on  any- 
body. 

Representative  Kasserman.  Before  this  ruling  is  made 
I  would  like  to  have  my  individual  protest  entered. 

The  CHAiRMAijsr.  The  record  may  show  the  individual 
protest  of  Representative  Kasserman. 

Representative  Garesche.  I  would  like  my  protest  en- 
tered in  the  record  against  it  on  these  grounds:  in  the 
first  place,  it  is  not  competent  evidence,  and  if  we  are 
going  to  pursue  this  investigation  along  the  lines  of  the 
customary  rules  of  evidence  this  would  not  be  admitted; 
and,  in  the  second  place,  we  are  not  sitting  as  a  grand 
jury  to  indict.  If  we  were,  this  would  be  competent  evi- 
dence, but  it  would  be  considered  behind  closed  doors.  I 
therefore  enter  my  protest. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  are  of  the  opinion 
that  the  ruling  on  that  ought  to  be  suspended  at  this 
time  and  be  reserved  by  the  counsel  and  not  attempt  to 
admit  it  at  the  present  time.  The  witness  may,  however, 
proceed  on  the  examination. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Very  well.  Will  you  read  the  last  ques- 
tion— the  second  to  the  last  question.  Did  he  then  submit 
these  papers!  — shall  I  identify  them  or  shall  I  stop  it 
entirely  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  can  identify  them,  there  is  no 
objection  to  it.  You  can  identify  the  paper,  but  don't 
introduce  it  into  the  record. 

Mr.  EteNEBN.  Q.  Has  he  submitted  to  you  any  papers 
in  reference  to  the  conversation  of  Newton  Arrison  and 
Mr.  John  W.  Gray  and  Thomas  Pickler? 

A.  He  submitted  this  paper  and  said  that  the  three 
men  had  come  to  his  office  and  sat  down  and  dictated  that 
statement  to  him,  which  he  picked  off  on  his  typewriter 
himself;  he  said  that  he  did  not  call  for  his  stenographer, 
did  not  use  his  stenographer,  he  took  it  from  them  him- 
self. 

Q.  You  received  this  from  Mr.  Duke?  A.  I  received 
that  from  Mr.  Duke. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  give  it?  A.  I  believe  I  brought 
it  to  you. 

1906  Q.    Yes,  to  whom  did  you  make  a  statement  of  this 


418         Witness  Gave  Duke  Statement  to  Mr.  Butts. 

conversation  with  Mr.  Duke  after  you  had  heard  him  talk 
about  this !    A.    I  mean,  I  believe  first  to  Mr.  Butts. 

Q.  Where  and  when?  A.  At  Springfield,  I  believe, 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  one  day. 

Q.  During  the  session  of  the  General  Assembly?  A. 
During  a  session  of  the  General  Assembly. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  to  anybody  else  about  it,  any  mem- 
ber of  the  Legislature?  A.  I  met  one  member  of  the 
Legislature  and  mentioned  to  him  that  I  had  something 
for  Mr.  Butts'  committee,  that  was  Mr.  Shannahan,  I 
believe. 

Q.    David  Shannahan?    A.    David  Shannahan. 

Q.  Did  you  afterwards  talk  to  me  about  it?  A.  I 
talked  with  you  about  it. 

Q.  After  talking  with  me  did  you  visit  Ottumwa, 
Iowa?    A.    I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  call  on  Mr.  Duke?  A.  I  called  on  Mr. 
Duke. 

Q.  It  was  in  reference  to  what?  A.  It  was  in  refer- 
ence to  inducing  him  to  come  to  Chicago  to  see  you. 

Q.     To  see  me?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  came  afterwards, 
of  your  own  personal  knowledge?  A.  Mr.  Duke  said 
that  he  had  lost  interest  in  the  case,  that  the  Empire  Vot- 

1907  ing  Machine  Company  had  given  his  clients  a  contract 
for  $1,000  to  be  paid  when  this  matter  was  settled,  or 
when  so  much  was  paid  on  these  machines,  and  they  were 
satisfied?  He  did  not  care  to  go  any  further  with  it.  He 
did  not  care  to  be  known  further  in  it,  but  I  asked  him 
to  come  to  Chicago. 

Q.     Did  you  see  him  in  Chicago  later?    A.    No,  sir. 

Q.     Did  you  again  go  to  Ottumwa,  Iowa?    A.    I  did. 

Q.     At  whose  request?    A.    At  vour  request. 

Q.     Did  you  see  Mr.  Duke?    A.  'l  did. 

Q.     In  reference  to  this  matter?    A.     Yes. 

Q.  What  Avas  your  conversation  relating  to  it?  A.  I 
asked  him  again  to  come  to  Chicago,  to  see  you  and  talk 
to  you,  and  he  said  that  he  would,  if  you  would  send  him 
a  telegram,  and  I  came  back,  and  as  I  remember,  told 
you,  and  you  sent  the  telegram,  but  he  did  not  come. 

Q.     He  did  not  come?    A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  not  seen  him  since,  have  you?  A.  No, 
sir ;  I  have  not  seen  him  since. 

1908  Witness  did  not  go  to  Iowa  to  get  the  written  state- 


Testimony  of  J.  P.  Townsend.  419 

ment  prepared  by  Duke,  but  to  visit  bis  father  on  Deco- 
ration Day. 

The  paper  is  offered  in  evidence,  but  for  the  present 
the  Commission  rules  that  the  paper  be  not  admitted  in 
evidence. 

1920  Witness  lives  in  the  30th  Ward,  Chicago.  Has  known 
Mr.  Deneen  from  20  to  25  years  and  is  a  Eepublican. 
Has  been  Deputy  Clerk  in  the  Criminal  Court  and  worked 
in  the  Recorder's  Office,  in  the  Circuit  Court,  in  the 
County  Treasurer's  office  and  in  the  Board  of  Review. 

1921  W^itness  had  not  known  Duke  before  Decoration  Day, 
when  he  was  introduced  to  him  by  his  (witness')  cousin, 
Dr.  Boyer  of  Ottumwa. 

1922  Witness '  visit  with  Duke  occurred  on  the  porch  of  wit- 
ness' father's  house  in  Washington. 

Witness'  father,  mother  and  cousin  were  sitting  on 
the  porch,  but  witness  does  not  think  they  heard  the  con- 
versation between  himself  and  Duke. 

1923  Witness  made  two  trips,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  De- 
neen, to  Ottumwa.  Told  Mr.  Shanahan  upon  an  acci- 
dental meeting,  and  told  Mr.  Butts  purposely  about  this 
and  was  called  in  by  Mr.  Deneen  to  ask  him  to  tell  all  he 
knew,  which  he  did. 

1924  Witness  had  not  tried  to  get  on  the  Committee's  pay- 
roll as  an  investigator.  His  expenses  to  Ottumwa  have 
not  been  paid,  but  witness  expects  they  will  be. 

The  witness  told  Mr.  Butts,  at  the  first  session  after 
Decoration  Day,  probably  June  2d  or  3d,  and  told  Mr. 
Deneen  two  or  three  weeks  ago,  who  told  witness  that 
Mr.  Butts  had  given  him,  Mr.  Deneen,  infonnation  re- 
garding the  Duke  statement. 

It  is  suggested  by  counsel  that  the  Chairman  identify 
the  Duke  statement  by  his  initials. 

1927  J.  P.  Townsend  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Resides  at  976  Edgecomb  place,  Chicago.  Witness  is 
hotel  manager  at  Grand  Pacific  Hotel.  The  hotel  has 
books  of  record,  which  show  that  N.  L.  Arrison  of  Ot- 
tumwa, Iowa,  was  at  the  hotel  January  11,  1911. 
11928  He  had  a  room  which  was  charged  to  H.  W.  Barr.  Wit- 
ness knows  Mr.  Barr,  who  had  been  at  the  hotel  from 


420  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 

time  to  time.    Mr.  Barr  is  agent  for  the  Empire  N^oting 
Machine  Company. 

Cross-Examination  bjf  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  does  not  know  Mr.  Arrison.  Can  only  say 
that  the  records  show  that  the  hotel  had  a  party  by  that 
name  January  11,  1911. 

Witness  Frank  Keiper  resumes  the  stand. 


1931  Fkank  Keiper: 

Exmnination  by  Senator  Landee. 

Witness  Keiper  drafted  a  number  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine laws  passed  in  some  of  the  states.  He  did  this,  not 
at  the  request  of  the  legislatures,  but  at  the  request  of 
the  Empire  Company. 

A  member  of  one  of  the  legislatures  went  to  witness, 
and  suggested  that  a  voting  machine  law  could  be  passed 
for  money. 

He,  witness,  did  not  listen  to  the  -suggestion. 

1932  Witness  told  the  other  voting  machine  men  about  it, 
but  it  did  not  come  to  the  ears  of  the  General  Assembly, 

1933  Witness  supposes  tliat  the  Veeder  meter  wheels  cost 
from  15  to  20  cents  for  the  set  of  6  pieces,  bought  by 
wholesale. 

1935  The  counters  are  bought  from  the  Veeder  Meter 
Company,  by  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company.  Do 
not  pay  royalties. 

1938  The  office  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company 
was  at  Rochester  until  1910  when  it  was  moved  to  James- 
town where  the  manufactory  has  always  been. 

1939  Witness  has  known  300  votes  to  be  cast  in  3  hours  and 
does  not  think  the  judges  would  have  time  to  look  at  the 
counters  during  voting  with  a  machine  that  had  no  limit 
to  the  number  of  inspections. 

Witness  has  only  an  indefinite  recollection  of  the  num- 
ber of  drawings  of  the  voting  machine  contract  by  him- 
self, Wheeloek  and  Mr.  Herrick.  It  was  drawn  some- 
time in  June  or  July. 
1^0  Thinks  the  consideration  of  the  contract  came  after 
the  drawing  of  the  resolutions  to  award  the  contract  for 


I 


Broken  Seal  Gives  Chcmces  for  Fraud.  421 

the  purchase  of  voting  machines  passed  by  the  Election 
Commissioners  on  June  30th. 

Witness  is  quite  sure  experimental  work  is  done  at  the 
voting  machine  factory  without  blueprints. 

1941  Drawings  are  made  from  the  machine,  not  the  ma- 
chine from  the  drawings.  Drawings  are  made  only  for 
the  purposes  of  record. 

The  seal  on  the  voting-lever  provides  a  double  pro- 
tection. The  seal  should  be  broken  by  the  first  voter  in 
pulling  the  voting-lever. 

Witness  thinks  it  is  the  practice  of  judges  to  place  a 
seal  on  the  voting-lever  at  night  after  the  count. 

1942  Breaking  the  seal  would  open  the  machine  to  possibili- 
ties of  fraud;  as  long  as  the  seal  remained  intact,  wit- 
ness would  say  the  machine  had  not  been  tampered  with. 

Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  did  not  regard  the  machines  as  quite  as  ef- 
fective for  evidence  as  to  the  count  after  the  seals  were 
broken  as  before.  Does  not  know  that  a  large  number 
of  seals  were  returned  broken  to  the  Pugh  Warehouse 
after  the  election. 

Witness  has  been  with  the  Empire  company  ever  since 
it  was  organized  in  1908. 

1943  Its  predecessor  was  the  U.  S.  Standard  with  which  wit- 
ness became  connected  when  it  was  organized  in  1901. 

Witness  is  not  a  stockholder  in  the  Empire  Company, 
but  is  patent  attorney  for  the  company. 

Witness  is  not  attorney  for  the  Board  of  Directors,  or 
for  the  officials,  the  president. 

He  takes  his  directions  from  the  manager  of  the  com- 
pany, Mr.  Lausterer,  who  lives  at  Jamestown,  while  Wit- 
ness lives  at  Rochester,  140  miles  distant. 

1944  Witness  does  not  know  the  names  of  the  stockholders 
of  the  Empire  Company  and  only  knows  any  on  hear- 
say. 

1945  Witness  has  heard  of  who  are  the  stockholders;  has 
heard  that  Adam  Andrew  of  San  Francisco  and  John 

1946  Cochran  of  Indianapolis   are   stockholders. 

Witness  does  not  know  whether  Williams  of  Oakland 
or  San  Francisco,  California  is  a  stockholder. 

John  Condon  of  'Chicago  was  a  stockholder  at  one 
time,  but  witness  does  not  think  he  is  at  present.     Four 


422  Witness  Knows  H.  W.  Barr. 

or  five  years  ago  witness  knew  Condon  was  because  "it 
was  at  that  time  he  told  me  he  was  interested  in  the  Fed- 
eral Company." 

"Q.    What  company?    A.    The  Federal  Company. 
"Q.     The  Dean  company?     A.     The  Dean  company." 
Witness  recalls  Mr.  Christenson  of  Indianapolis,  the 
inventor  of  the  Columbia  machine,  as  a  stockholder. 

1947  The  stockholders  of  the  United  States  Standard  never 
received  any  stock  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany. 

U.  S.  Standard  sold  its  assets  to  the  Empire  Company 
for  stock,  but  it  has  never  been  dissolved.  The  U.  S. 
Standard  Company  owes  some  stock  to  the  Empire  Com- 
pany. The  U.  S.  Standard  Company  has  no  business  ex- 
cept the  ownership  of  the  stock. 

The  consolidation  of  the  United  States  Standard  Com- 
pany with  the  Empire  occurred  in  1908. 

The  only  original  feature  of  the  Columbia  machine 
was  the  cumulative  lock-out.  The  present  lock-out  is 
an  improvement  on  that  original. 

1948  From  the  Dean  machine  the  Empire  Company  took  the 
present  counters,  which  is  an  improvement  of  them  on 
the  Dean  machine.  Securing  the  Dean  counter  was  not  a 
feature  of  the  consolidation  of  companies. 

The  machines  combined  were  the  Dean,  Columbia,  and 
the  United  States  Standard.  The  Empire  Company  took 
nearly  everything  from  the  United  States  Standard. 

1949  Witness  knew  nothing  about  the  organization  of  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company;  he  was  in  the  Battle 
Creek  Sanitarium  five  weeks  in  July  and  December,  and 
it  occurred  during  that  time. 

The  consolidation  of  companies  was  not  made  to  get 
the  political  influence  in  order  to  sell  machines;  it  was 
made  because  the  companies  were  hard  up  and  wanted 
to  cut  down  expenses. 

1950  Aside  from  this,  witness  does  not  know  the  time  or 
purpose  of  the  consolidation. 

The  fact  that  the  Empire  Company  holds  the  Dean  and 
Columbia  patents  gives  the  Empire  Company  a  wider 
scope  in  building  and  experimenting.  The  company  does 
not  use  these  patents  but  it  builds  better  machines. 

Witness  knows  Mr.  H.  W.  Barr. 

1951  Witness  thinks  that  Mr.  Barr  was  at  witness'  house 


Witness  Knows  Carl  F.  Lonib.  423 

shortly  after  witness  was  operated  on  at  Rochester  about 
3  weeks  ago. 

Witness  supposes  Mr.  Barr  is  with  tlie  Empire  Com- 
pany. Witness  does  not  know  whether  Mr.  Barr  was 
in  Chicago  when  the  contract  was  drawn  or  not.  Witness 
does  not  know  any  other  Mr.  Barr.  Mr.  Barr  didn't  talk 
with  witness  about  coming  here  as  a  witness. 

1952  Mr.  Barr  didn't  say  he  had  received  a  telegram  or 
letter  from  the  chairman  of  the  committee. 

"Q.  Did  he  talk  about  a  contract  that  he  had  made, 
entered  into  between  himself  and  Mr.  Thomas  Pickler, 
formerly  of  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  and  Mr.  Newt.  Arrison  of 
Ottumwa,  Iowa,  and  Mr.  J.  H.  Gray  of  Ottumwa,  Iowa, 
regarding  the  pa\Tnent  by  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company  or  himself  for  $1,000  after  the  next  payment 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  was  made  upon  the  contract  be- 
tween the  Empire  Company  and  the  City  of  Chicago? 
A.     No,  sir. 

"Q.     Was  that  referred  to?     A.     No,  sir. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  contract?  A. 
Never  heard  of  it  until  to-day. 

"Q.     Do  you  know  Mr.  Lomb?    A.    I  do. 

"Q.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  him  profes- 
sionally with  reference  to  the  Empire  Company?  A.  I 
do. 

"Q.     He  is  the  president  of  your  company?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  Have  you  talked  with  him  about  the  contract  to 
which  I  made  reference,  made  the  13th  of  May,  1913,  for 
$1,000  between  the  parties  to  whom  I  have  referred?  A. 
No. 

"Qi.  Who  is  the  man  Lausterer,  is  that  the  gentle- 
man?   A.    Yes. 

"Q.  Have  you  talked  with  Mr.  Lausterer  regarding 
that  contract!    A.    No,  sir." 

1953  Witness  has  not  discussed  with  Mr.  Lomb  the  subject 
of  Lomb's  coming  to  Chicago  to  testify  before  the  Com- 
mittee or  with  the  officials  or  employees  of  the  company, 
the  question  of  their  coming  to  Chicago. 

1954  Witness  has  heard  here  that  Mr.  Barr  is  at  Paw  Paw, 
Michigan.  Witness  did  not  know  Mr.  Barr  owned  a  resi- 
dence in  Chicago  up  to  July.  1st.  Knew  that  he  had  an 
apartment  here  temporarily. 

Witness  did  not  try  to  telephone  Mr.  Barr  since  com- 
ing to  Chicago.    Witness  helped  draw  up  the  contract. 


424  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 

1955  Witness  helped  Mr.  Wheelock  and  Mr.  Herrick  to  draw 
the  contract. 

Witness  didn't  see  any  specifications  at  that  time  and 
they  were  not  discussed  by  the  other  gentlemen  with  wit- 
ness. 

1956  Witness  thinks  that  the  paragraph  of  the  contract  pro- 
viding that  the  specifications  be  attached  and  marked 
Exhibit  A  was  in  the  original  draft  drawn  by  Wheelock, 
and  was  left  in  finally.  Does  not  know  why  it  was  "at- 
tached to"  instead  of  being  "made  a  part  hereof."  Be- 
lieves that  was  the  usual  form  of  all  contracts  made  by 
the  company. 

1957  Witness  has  never  looked  at  the  specifications  in  this 
connection. 

Witness  read  the  primary  election  law  of  Illinois  only 
within  the  past  few  days.  Did  not  read  it  in  connection 
with  the  contract.  Witness  has  read  only  parts  of  the 
Illinois  Election  Law. 

Witness  read  the  voting  machine  law  and  the  law  au- 
thorizing the  Election  Commissioners  to  act. 

1958  The  voting  machine  law  is  part  of  the  election  law  as 
witness  read  them. 

The  witness  has  read  the  Illinois  Constitution  as  to 
cumulative  voting.  He  gets  his  information  as  to  inde- 
pendent voting  and  women  voting  from  the  sample  bal- 
lot. 

1960  Witness  did  not  read  anything  about  the  County  Com- 
missioners or  Sanitary  District  Trustees  or  Municipal 
Court  judges.  His  information  regarding  this  was  from 
the  sample  ballot. 

1961  Blue  prints  would  be  quite  desirable  for  studying  the 
hidden  parts  of  a  machine  such  as  we  have  here,  also 
photographs  and  instructions. 

1962  Witness  never  represented  the  Empire  Company  be- 
fore the  Chicago  Election  Commissioners.  Was  engaged 
in  the  preparation  of  the  contract  "only  a  couple  of 
days."  Was  in  consultation  with  the  lawyers  who  pre- 
pared the  contract,  probably  a  week  or  two.  Spent  most 
of  the  time  in  the  law  library  here  looking  up  decisions 
so  as  to  discuss  questions  intelligently  with  the  lawyers. 

Witness  thinks  this  work  began  before  the  4th  of  July. 
Was  interrupted  several  times  and  extended  to  a  con- 
siderable time  afterwards. 

1963  Witness'  time  then  was  divided  between  Chicago  and 


¥ 


Testimony  of  F.  Keiper.  425 

South  Bend  where  there  was  some  competition,  and  wit- 
ness went  there  to  see  what  was  going  on. 

Mr.  Wheelock  made  the  draft  of  tlie  contract  and  wit- 
ness made  a  copy  on  which  he  made  a  great  many  notes 
and  exceptions.  Wheelock  had  this  job  before  witness 
came  to  Chicago. 

1964  The  Empire  Company  removed  to  Jamestown  in  De- 
cember, 1909. 

"Q.  After  you  removed  your  office  to  Jamestown,  do 
you  know  the  serial  number  that  was  placed  on  your  ma- 
chines thereafter;  in  other  words,  didn't  you  begin  with 
4000,  at  4000?  A.  No,  sir,  I  think  it  ran  consecutively 
with  the  machines  that  had  been  made  by  the  United 
States  Standard  Company." 

Witness  thinks  the  South  Bend  contract  was  awarded 
after  the  Chicago  contract. 

Witness  does  not  know  about  the  time  of  delivery  of 
the  South  Bend  machines.  If  they  were  delivered  after 
the  Chicago  machines,  the  serial  number  would  be 
higher. 

The  printing  device  on  the  International  machine  is 
not  practical  in  use. 

1965  Mistakes  may  be  made  in  printing;  machine  does  not 
furnish  an  absolute  check  on  the  custodian. 

1966  As  a  check  on  the  Empire,  the  judges  might  photo- 
graph the  counters.  Witness  thinks  this  could  be  done 
in  every  precinct  in  Chicago.  There  are  dozens  of  pho- 
tographers in  every  precinct.  Photographs  coul'd  be 
made  of  the  registers  3/16  of  an  inch  wide;  witness  has 
taken  them  repeatedly. 

1967  The  printing  device  is  intended  as  a  check  upon  the 
custodian.  The  International's  advertising  matter  calls 
attention  to  the  quick  press  returns  that  can  be  taken 
from  a  printing  machine.  The  morning  print  would 
probably  just  be  a  check  on  the  custodian. 

Witness  does  not  think  that  a  complete  record  would 
be  printed  from  the  face  of  the  International  machine. 

1968  The  Empire  Company  does  not  issue  instructions  to 
judges  to  take  photographs. 

1969  The  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company's  machine  can 
be  voted  when  the  upper  and  rear  doors  are  open. 

Witness  states  that  the  voting  machine  has  two  ad- 
vantages over  the  Australian  ballot;  one  in  reference  to 
purchasing  votes,  the  other  in  reference  to  counting. 


426  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 

1970  On  the  Empire  machine  the  judges  read  the  ballots 
and  add  them  up.  The  witness  thinks  it  more  difficult  for 
the  judges  to  miscount  on  the  machine  than  under  the 
Australian  ballot  system. 

1971  With  a  lever  machine  the  machine  itself  would  do 
the  writing,  cutting  out  the  addition  and  so  far  eliminat- 
ing the  human  element. 

1973  With  6  party  tickets  and  five  candidates  running  inde- 
pendently for  Governor  it  would  require  the  use  of  two 
vertical  columns  for  Governor. 

1976  Mr.  Deneen  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  witness 
has  been  handed  a  town  of  Cicero  ballot  having  14  can- 
didates for  County  Commissioner,  instead  of  a  Chicago 
ballot  with  46  candidates  for  County  Commissioner. 

Forty-six  candidates  would  require  the  use  of  16  col- 
umns on  the  machine,  or  67  office  lines,  and  there  are  40 
office  lines  on  ■  the  machine.  This  would  accommodate 
the  entire  Chicago  ballot. 


VOLUME  XX. 


Morning  Session. 
Friday,  August  8,  1913. 

1978  Frank  Keiper  resumes  stand: 

Cross-Examination  (Cont'd)  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

1979  The  witness  is  asked  as  to  the  price  of  the  various 
Empire  voting  machines.  Witness  testifies  that  the  Em- 
pire Company  has  a  price-list  of  voting  machines  it 
manufactures  of  various  sizes  which  are  priced  accord- 
ing to  size  and  to  the  various  attachments,  such  as  pri- 
mary lock-outs,  cumulative  voting  lock-outs,  etc. 

(The  question  was  asked  by  Mr.  McEwen  and  is  ob- 
jected to  by  Mr.  Deneen  on  the  ground  that  the 
witness  disqualified  himself  from  giving  testimony 
on  the  subject  of  the  price,  as  his  relations  were 
solely  with  Mr.  Lausterer,  the  manufacturing  man- 
ager. The  objection  is  sustained.) 
Mr.  McEwen  then  offers  to  prove  that  the  prices  of  the 
Empire  are  standard,  ranging  from  $600  up. 

(The  objection  is  sustained  by  the  Committee.) 


I 

\ 


Witness  Cannot  Name  Empire  Stockholders.        427 

1982  The  witness  does  not  remember  any  additional  names 
of  stookliolders.  Witness  knows  only  two  officers  of  the 
company,  Mr.  Carl  F.  Lomb  and  Philip  H.  Yawman,  both 
of  Rochester. 

1983  Mr.  Lomb  is  president,  Mr.  Lausterer  is  the  manager. 
When  Mr.  Barr  had  his  conversation  in  Rochester  with 

witness,  he  had  no  business  in  Rochester,  so  far  as  the 
witness  knows. 

1984  Witness  does  not  recall  having  talked  with  Mr.  Barr 
in  any  way  about  the  contract. 

Mr.  Barr  was  in  Chicago  before  the  time  when  the 
witness  was  here,  but  witness  does  not  recall  seeing  him 
just  at  the  time  the  contract  was  drawn. 

Witness  didn't  talk  with  Mr.  Barr  about  the  sale  to 
Chicago  of  so  many  machines.  The  Chicago  sale  is  the 
largest  the  Empire  Company  ever  made.  Mr.  Barr  made 
the  sale. 

Wlien  Mr.  Barr  saw  witness  in  Rochester  three  weeks 
ago,  they  did  not  talk  about  this  investigation,  nor  about 
Mr.  Charles  Walsh  of  Ottumwa,  or  Thomas  Pickler,  New- 
ton Arrison,  or  J.  H.  Gray.  "Neither  of  them,  individu- 
ally or  collectively." 

1985  Nothing  concerning  the  matters  that  have  come  up  in 
this  hearing  was  mentioned. 

Witness  has  not  seen  Mr.  Barr  since  and  does  not  know 
where  he  is  now. 

Mr.  Lomb  did  not  consult  with  witness  about  coming 
before  the  Committee,  nor  did  any  of  the  other  officials. 

Witness  knows  of  no  lawyer  from  the  east,  beside  him- 
self here  at  the  time  the  contract  was  made. 

1986  In  his  conversation  with  the  witness,  Mr.  Barr  did  not 
say  where  he  would  be  during  the  summer. 

Witness  saw  the  ballot  printed  by  the  International 
machine  in  November,  1897;  some  of  the  counters  were 
clearly  printed  and  some  were  not,  and  on  some  of  the 
counters  there  were  figures  totally  missing.  It  was  a 
very  poor  print.  Witness  would  say  it  was  too  poor  to 
serve  as  a  check  on  the  custodian. 

Witness  examines  the  paper  which  he  states  was  such 
a  ballot  as  he  saw  taken  from  the  International  machine 
seven  or  eight  years  ago.  A  ballot  such  as  this  in  which 
the  impression  was  taken  before  the  machine  was  sent 
to  the  polls  and  impressions  just  before  the  voting  began 
and  three  others  to  be  sent  to  different  officials  would, 


428  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 

in  the  witness'  opinion  constitute    no    adequate    check 
upon  the  custodian. 

The  counters  on  the  machine  are  negative,  which,  the 
witness  says,  is  most  favorable  for  printing. 

1989  Witness  states  that  on  the  ticket  lie  is  inspecting  that 
three  naughts  for  Adam  Wolff  are  almost  illegible,  one 
naught  for  William  McAllister  cannot  be  seen  at  all; 
that  in  the  hundred  column  the  naught  for  William 
Brady  is  duplicated  or  shaded  showing  a  double  impres- 
sion for  that  candidate. 

Witness  points  out  other  names  on  the  machine  where 
he  says  the  machine  has  registered  illegibly.     So  that, 

1990  witness  says,  it  cannot  be  determined  whether  certain 
figures  are  naughts  or  nines.  Witness  describes  other 
uncertainties  of  the  figures  printed  by  the  International 
machine  on  the  sample  ballot. 

1991  If  the  witness  were  a  judge  of  election  he  would  not 
use  this  ballot  sheet,  sample  ballot,  as  a  return,  because 
of  its  inaccuracies,  and  would  take  the  count  directly 
from  the  machine.  This  would  be  difficult  for  anybody 
but  a  printer  because  the  counters  are  negative. 

1992-3  Witness  points  out  other  fignires  which  he  deems  un- 
certain or  inaccurate. 

1994  The  witness  has  marked  the  sample  ballot  with  red 
pencil  indicating  where  he  thinks  it  erroneously  printed 
or  faultily  printed  or  poorly  printed. 

Mr.  Deneen  introduces  the  sample  ballot  in  evidence. 

The  witness  testifies  that  in  several  places  the  ballot 
showed  units  instead  of  zeros  at  the  opening  of  the  elec- 
tion at  six  o'clock. 

1995  "Mr.  Petrie.  There  are  two  places  there,  in  one  col- 
umn and  another;  that  shows  the  check  on  the  non-reset- 
ting of  the  registers." 

1996  There  have  been  about  800  voting  machines  invented 
and  the  work  still  goes  on  upon  other  inventions. 

Three  sample  ballots  are  introduced,  one  of  which  was 
marked  by  witness,  the  others  are  marked  for  identifica- 
tion 1,  2  and  3,  of  this  date,  that  is  August  8th. 

Concerning  the  merger  of  companies  into  the  Empire 
Company  the  witness  does  not  know  that  the  owners  of 
the  Dean  or  Federal  Company  were  known  to  be  gam- 
blers and  the  Dean  Company  was  not  taken  into  the 
Empire  because  of  its  large  influence  in  selling  machines. 
1998     Mr.  McEwen  produces  the  book  from  the  Election  Com- 


Testimony  of  F.  Keiper.  429 

missioners'    oflRee    marked    "Specimen    Ballot   Primary 
Election,  Tuesday,  April  9,  1912,  of  the  City  of  Chicago." 

1999  Witness  is  handed  the  Republican  ballot  and  says  there 
are  46  candidates  for  County  Commissioners. 

The  Eiepublican  primary  ballot  is  introduced,  marked 
' '  Exhibit  4,  August  8th. ' ' 

The  Republican  primary  ballots  would  require  more 
than  three  office  rows  on  the  Empire  machine.  Without 
stopping  to  count,  the  witness  thinks  four  would  be  suffi- 
cient. 

2000  The  primary  election  device  is  controlled  by  the  judges. 
It  is  a  little  instrument  with  a  knob  about  four  inches 
long. 

Wlien  operated  by  the  judge  it  cannot  be  seen  by  the 
voter  who  is  inside  the  booth.  Witness  thinks  that  any- 
body in  the  polling  place  near  that  end  of  the  machine 
who  knew  about  the  lever  could  certainly  see  it. 

2001  If  the  restricting  mechanism  has  been  removed  from 
the  primary  voting  device  the  judge  could  set  the  lever 
so  as  to  permit  the  voter  to  vote  in  all  the  parties  or  in 
any  party-column  but  not  more  than  the  maximum  num- 
ber of  votes  allowed  for  an  office. 

If  a  restriction  device  to  prevent  or  interfere  with 
voting  were  placed  on  a  voting  machine,  the  judge  would 
have  to  send  for  somebody  to  fix  it. 

2002  The  witness  thinks  that  the  double  appearance  of  some 
of  the  figures  printed  on  the  International  machine  on 
the  sample  ballot  indicates  that  the  printing  roller  has 
been  passed  over  the  figures  at  least  twice. 

Witness'  answer  that  if  paper  or  blotter  could  be  in- 
serted between  the  ballot  and  the  printing  device  on  the 
International  machine  so  as  to  prevent  the  printing  and 
permit  the  subsequent  printing  in  of  ciphers  applies  to 
the  machine  which  printed  the  sample  ballots  introduced 
in  evidence.  W^ith  collusion  between  the  parties  han- 
dling such  a  machine,  the  sample  ballot  could  be  made  an 
instrument  of  fraud  rather  than  a  preventative. 

2003  It  would  be  possible  to  keep  any  particular  counter 
or  group  of  counters  from  printing  and  afterwards  point 
in  an_v  figures  desired  by  use  of  a  rubber  stamp. 

Steel  type  is  readily  procurable  in  the  market. 

Witness  does  not  agree  that  a  paper  zero  placed  on 
the  Empire  machine  will  be  swept  off  by  the  mechanism 
as  the  counter  moves  around. 


430  Testimony  of  F.  Keiper. 

2004  It  might  escape  being  swept  off  by  the  counter  pinion 
and  keep  on  rotating  with  the  counter  wheel.  If  attached 
with  dextrine  it  would  remain  on. 

The  space  between  the  pin  that  carries  the  transfer 
pinion  is  very  substantial  as  compared  witli  even  the 
thickness  or  even  the  turned-up  edge  of  a  piece  of  paper. 

Witness  did  not  observe  the  experiment  with  paper 
zeros  upon  the  machine  in  the  hearing  room  or  whether 
they  came  off  the  machine  in  the  experiment,  and  does 
not  know  by  actual  experience  wdiether  thev  would  come 
off.  [ 

2006  If  the  judges  tampered  with  the  International  machine 
in  printing  upon  sample  ballots  it  might  be  detected  by 
comparison  with  the  custodian's  sample  ballot  filed  in  the 
Election  Commissioners'  office.  It  would  show  a  disa- 
greement or  lead  to  an  investigation  and  indicate  what- 
ever the  investigation  showed. 

2007  The  Empire  machine  furnishes  no  protection  against 
manipulation  of  the  counters  by  the  custodian  except  the 
inspection  by  the  judges  and  if  they  did  not  discover  the 
manipulation  it  furnishes  no  protection  whatever. 

2008  If  the  judges  remove  the  pawl  on  the  independent  paper 
roll  and  the  voter  votes  more  than  once  for  independent 
candidates  the  fact  would  be  indicated  on  the  Empire  ma- 
chine by  the  absence  of  the  punch  marks  for  some  of  the 
votes  east. 

2010  If  the  voting  lever  were  set  at  zero  and  the  voter  voted 
at  a  primary  election  for  candidates  outside  of  his  own 
party,  it  could  not  be  discovered  by  any  evidence  on  the 
Empire  machine  except  by  an  inspection  of  the  lever  dur- 
ing the  casting  of  the  votes  and  the  possibility  that  they 
might  find  that  there  had  been  more  votes  cast  for  candi- 
dates than  the  poll  list  shows. 

When  the  machine  is  in    proper    order   for    primary 

2011  voting  the  zero  should  be  locked  out. 

2012  Witness  thinks  that  an  8  by  10  photograph  can  be 
taken  of  the  back  of  the  machine  showing  all  the  coun- 
ters. Witness  has  taken  photographs  of  the  back  of  the 
machine  and  the  figures  show  up  so  clearly  that  witness 
thinks  it  would  be  very  much  less  trouble  discovering  er- 
rors than  on  the  sample  ballot  printed  on  the  Interna- 
tional machine. 

2013  The  election  could  be  carried  on  with  the  door  conceal- 
ing the  counters  open  and  the  judge  could  discover  how 
a  man  voted  by  going  back  of  the  machine  and  making  a 


Testimony  of  F.  Keiper.  431 

complete  transcript  of  the  counters  before  the  next  voter 
voted.  Without  seeing  all  the  counters  a  judge  could  see 
how  a  voter  voted  for  any  one  ticket  or  what  ticket  was 
voted. 

2014  Witness  does  not  know  the  number  of  directors  on  the 
Board  of  Directors  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany. Witness  thinks  he  was  informed  at  some  time  that 
there  are  seven. 

Witness  thinks  that  under  the  New  York  law  the  direc- 
tors of  corporations  must  be  stockholders. 

2015  Witness  has  never  seen  a  list  of  the  stockholders  of  the 
Empire  Company. 

Witness  never  had  anything  to  do  with  drafting  vot- 
ing machine  laws  in  connection  with  the  Empire  Com- 
pany. That  was  in  connection  with  the  United  States 
Standard  Company.  Witness  thinks  the  United  States 
Standard  Company  had  six  directors  and  he  knew  some 
of  them. 

2016  The  resolution  under  which  the  Committee  is  acting 
directs  the  Committee  to  find  out  who  the  stockholders 
of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  are. 

2017  Witness  can  find  out  who  the  stockholders  are  with  the 
consent  of  the  directors  or  the  secretary  of  the  company. 

Witness'  check  for  services  was  always  signed  by  Mr. 
Lausterer,  the  manager  of  the  company. 

2018  It  is  signed  "The  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  by 
W.  J.  Lausterer,"  there  is  no  counter  signature. 

2019  Witness  gives  as  an  estimate  of  the  factory  cost  of  the 
manufacture  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  somewhere 
between  $400  and  $500,  to  which  would  be  added  the  over- 
head charges.  Witness  does  not  know  what  these  would 
figure  at. 

2020  At  the  request  of  Mr.  McEwen  the  witness  prints  three 
or  four  sample  ciphers  on  the  margin  of  the  one  of  the 
sample  ballots  printed  by  the  International  Voting  ma- 
chine. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  Printing  five  sets  of  ciphers  three 
each  on  the  margin.  Is  that  the  sort  of  steel  type  or  metal 
type  that  you  had  in  mind  when  you  said  they  could  be 
readily  procured  in  a  large  city?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Why, 
those  numbering  stamps  can  be  bought  usually  in  any 
stationery  store." 

Witness  does  not  know  to  what  Mr.  Lomb  testified  be- 
fore the  grand  jury  as  to  the  cost  of  manufacturing  the 
Empire  voting  machine. 


432    Witness  Votes  in  One  Minute  and  Sixteen  Seconds. 

2021  Witness  has  talked  with  Mr.  Lomb  at  Rochester  since 
Lonab  testified  before  the  grand  jury.  Mr.  Lomb  was  very 
glad  to  go  before  the  grand  jury. 

Mr.  Barr  did  not  say  anything  to  witness  about  his  tes- 
tifying before  the  grand  jury. 

Mr.  Lausterer  asked  witness  to  come  before  the  pres- 
ent investigating  committee.  Lausterer  did  this  about 
two  or  three  hours  before  witness  left  Rochester. 

2022  Witness  has  been  sick  and  was  reluctant  to  come. 
"Mr.  McEwEN.     I  am  informed,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 

Mr.  Keiper  states  that  he  is  very  sure  that  Dun  and  Brad- 
street  will  get  the  number  and  names  of  the  directors; 
he  says  he  hasn't  any  recollection  on  the  subject  and  also 
says  the  Secretary  of  State  could  readily  furnish  that  in- 
formation,—the  Secretary  of  State  of  New  York, — ^but 
that  he  has  not  got  it,  does  not  know  the  original  stock- 
holders in  the  organization. 

"The  Witness.     Not  excepting    they    were    incorpo- 
rated." 
2025    Witness  casts  an  experimental   vote  on  the   machine, 
writing  in  two  electors '  names  and  voting  on  public  ques- 
tions. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  timed  it  55  seconds  up  to  the  writ- 
ing in  of  the  names,  and  one  minute  and  sixteen  seconds 
for  the  complete  vote." 

Another  experimental  vote  was  cast  by  the  witness  in 
55  seconds  according  to  Mr.  McEwen;  and  1  minute  and 
1  second  outside  of  throwing  the  curtain,  according  to 
Representative  Jayne. 

In  experimental  voting  the  curtains  were  removed  and 
the  time  was  determined  from  the  moment  the  witness 
began  pulling  the  keys. 

2027  Witness  thinks  he  could  have  voted  very  much  more 
quickly  if  he  had  been  posted  on  the  ballot. 

2028  Witness  thinks  he  could  vote  in  35  to  40  seconds  if 
posted  on  the  ballot. 

Witness  thinks  that  very  few  ballots  in  an  ordinary  elec- 
tion would  be  as  mixed  as  the  one  voted  by  witness. 

In  voting,  the  witness  read  the  names,  but  took  the  loca- 
tions on  the  machine  by  number. 

Witness  states  that  the  numbers  on  the  ballots  were 

2029  somewhat  concealed  because  the  figures  had  been  printed 
a  little  too  high  on  the  ballot  labels. 


t 


Witness  Votes  in  Thirty-three  Seconds.  433 

Afternoon  Session. 
Friday,  August  8,  1913. 

2033  Frank  Keiper  resumes  the  stand: 

Cross-Eocamination  {cont'd)  hi/  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  was  employed  on  a  salary  by  the  Empire  Com- 
pany only  for  a  short  time.  Since  December,  1909,  wit- 
ness has  been  in  general  practice  and  since  that  time  the 
Empire  Company  has  been  one  of  a  dozen  similar  clients 
of  the  witness. 

2035  In  his  experimental  voting,  the  witness  ' '  first  voted  the 
State  Party  ticket  and  then  scratched,  voting  for  every 
10th  candidate  on  the  second  party,  and  scratched  again, 
voting  for  everj'  5th  candidate  on  the  last  party  ticket. ' ' 

Witness  read  the  names  of  those  he  voted  for,  but  did 
not  read  the  question. 

2036  Mr.  Mitchell  renews  a  motion  to  permit  witness  to 
cast  an  experimental  ballot  on  the  voting  machine  for  a 
straight  Republican  ticket,  and  then  cast  a  scratched  vote 
for  four  candidates.  After  discussion  it  is  decided  that 
he  shall  study  a  sample  ballot  and  vote  as  he  pleases,  an- 
nouncing how  many  scratches  he  made. 

During  the  discussion  the  Chairman  asks  witness : 

2038  "The  Chairman.  Q.  Do  you  believe  that  the  voters 
should  vote  by  numbers!  A.  It  is  so  much  easier  to  lo- 
cate those  than  by  name." 

2039  "Sen.  Landee.  Q.  How  many  average  voters  would 
look  for  the  number?  Would  not  they  look  for  the  names 
of  the  party  they  voted  fori" 

Senator  Landee  thinks  that  voting  should  be  done  by 
name. 

2040  Witness  thinks  that  numbers  are  a  big  assistance  to 
illiterate  voters.  They  would  recognize  the  numbers 
where  they  could  not  read  the  names.  Anybody  can  count 
money. 

Whereupon  witness  went  to  the  machine  and  made  a 
test  vote,  voting  the  straight  Republican  ticket  and  voting 
on  all  of  the  questions,  witli  the  following  splits :  11-B, 
24-C,  36-C,  47-C,  and  59-B,  and  cast  his  vote  and  was  out 
of  the  booth  in  33  seconds. 

2041  A  bystander,  Mr.  E.  Weber,  of  7006  Throop  street,  who 
had  voted  at  last  fall's  election,  now  cast  an  experimental 
vote  upon  the  machine  in  1  minute  and  18  seconds 


k 


434  Various  Mistakes  Made  in  Voting. 

Mr.  Weber  voted  for  the  candidates  represented  on  the 
machine  by  1-18C,  24-35C  inclusive,  and  36-B  to  41-B  in- 
clusive. Also  on  the  proposition  13  voted  yes ;  17,  no ;  21 
yes,  and  25,  yes. 

Rep.  Jayne  voted  a  Prohibition  ticket  instead  of  a  Dem- 
ocratic. 

Bystander  "William  A.  Stewart  of  6628  Carpenter  street, 
cast  an  experimental  ballot  on  the  machine.  He  had 
never  voted  on  the  machine  at  an  election,  but  voted  on 
it  experimentally  a  dozen  or  two  times  and  knows  how  to 
vote  on  it. 

Mr.  Stewart  cast  a  ballot  in  1  minute,  45  seconds,  for 
the  following  candidates:  B  up  to  B-15  inclusive;  16,  17, 
and  18-C ;  24  to  36-F  inclusive ;  37  to  41-A  inclusive ;  40 
to  44-F  inclusive,  and  47  to  61-C  inclusive. 

Mr.  Stewart  casts  a  third  experimental  vote  on  which 
Rep.  Jayne  states :  "In  that  case  all  the  keys  voted  on 
the  Democratic  line  except  61-B,  he  did  not  throw  it  down 
far  enough." 

The  witness  casts  a  straight  Republican  ballot  in  6 
seconds. 

2050  Witness  Keiper  returns  to  the  witness  stand  and  states 
as  to  the  experimental  voting:  "I  voted  a  straight  Re- 
publican ticket  and  made  five  splits  that  I  had  previously 
picked  out  according  to  their  names  and  their  numbers 
on  the  machine,  and  then  voted  'yes'  on  the  first  two  ques- 
tions and  'no'  on  the  third,  'yes'  on  the  fourth,  'no'  on 
the  fifth  and  sixth  and  'yes'  on  the  seventh,  I  think;  and 
I  was  told  that  I  finished  in  33  seconds. 

"Mr.  Mitchell.     That  is  all. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Mr.  Keiper,  did  you  read  any  of 
those  questions? 

"A.    No,  I  did  not  read  the  questions. 

"Q.  For  how  many  men  did  you  vote  outside  of  the 
Republican  columns?  A.  I  voted  for  five  outside  of  the 
Republican  column. 

"Q.  For  whom  did  you  vote?  A.  It  is  on  the  list  I 
made  out. 

"Q.    Do  you  remember?    A.    No,  I  don't  remember. 

"Q.  Did  you  read  the  names  on  the  ballot  on  the 
face  of  the  machine?  A.  I  did,  to  identify  those  I  had 
on  the  list. 

2051  "Q.     You  read  simply  those  on  the  list?     A.     I  read 
those  on  the  list  and  found  the  names  on  the  ballot  board. 

"Q.    For  those  five  only?    A.    For  those  five  only. 


Committee  Appoints  a  Sub-Committee.  435 

"Q.  In  other  words,  you  looked  for  five  men,  you  voted 
a  straight  Republican  ticket  with  the  exception  of  those 
five  and  then  voted  the  questions  'yes'  or  'no'  without 
reading  the  questions!  A.  I  did  not  read  the  questions, 
that  is  right. 

"Q.  You  had  made  up  your  mind  fully  before  you 
entered  the  curtain  as  to  how  you  would  vote?    A.    I  did. 

"Q.  And  the  o-peration  inside  was  purely  mechanical  f 
A.     I  had  to  read  the  names  I  scratched  for. 

"Q.  And  pull  the  keys?  A.  And  pull  all  the  keys  I 
operated. 

"Mr.  Deneek.    That  is  all." 

2052  A  crippled  man  can  be  helped  by  the  judges  in  voting 
on  the  machine;  a  left-handed  man  cannot  write  in  the 
Independent  slide  as  a  right-handed  man  can.  A  boy 
four  feet  eleven  inches  tall  wrote  in  the  slides  and  seemed 
to  be  able  to  reach  them. 

2053  In  the  course  of  a  day's  voting,  with  a  voter  running 
his  finger  along  the  keys,  witness  would  not  want  to  say 
that  a  vote  or  two  might  not  be  lost  by  not  pulling  the 
key  down  sufficiently. 

2055  ' '  Sen.  Landee.  The  election  law  does  not  recognize  the 
numbers  on  the  ballots,  but  only  the  names." 

To  this  witness  agress,  and  says  that  the  numbers  are 
a  convenience  to  the  voter  as  well  as  an  identification 
of  the  candidate  with  the  counters  on  the  back  of  the 
machine.  Illiterate  voters  read  the  numbers  when  they 
cannot  read  the  names. 

2056  His  friends  can  tell  him  the  location  of  the  candidates 
according  to  their  number.  Without  the  numbers  the  il- 
literate voters  would  have  to  have  assistance;  with  them 
he  can  get  along  without  assistance. 

2058  "The  Chairman.  The  committee,  in  executive  session 
yesterday,  selected  a  sub-committee  to  take  evidence  out- 
side of  the  state." 

Whereupon  the  Committee  adjourned  until  the  follow- 
ing Wednesday,  the  13th  inst.  (August  13th,  1913.) 


436  Report  of  Sub-Cammittee. 


VOLUME  XXI. 

Afternoon  Session. 
Wednesday,  August  13,  1913. 

Eeport  op  Sub-Committee. 

2069  "The  Chairman:  The  sub-committee  appointed  by 
the  whole  committee  to  visit  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  procuring  such  evidence  as  possible,  render  the 
following  report.  I  will  have  Mr.  Whittaker  read  it, 
signed  by  Mr.  Butts  and  Mr.  Kasserman,  Mr.  Jayne  be- 
ing absent  in  Omaha  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Whittakeb:    (Reading  report  of  Committee: — ) 

"To  the  Members  of  the  Committee: — Under  your  di- 
rection your  sub-committee  went  to  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  Mon- 
day, August  11th,  and  held  a  session  at  the  Ballingall 
Hotel.  At  that  session  Mr.  Thomas  Pickler  refused  to 
testify,  but  submitted  in  lieu  of  testimony  an  affidavit,  a 
copy  of  which  is  hereto  appended  as  Exhibit  A. 

"Mr.  L.  L.  Duke,  the  attorney,  who  prepared  the  state- 
ment in  question,  was  requested  to  testify,  but  submitted 
to  the  committee  a  written  statement  which  is  attached 
hereto  as  Exhibit  B. 

"Mr.  Newton  W.  Arrison  and  Mr.  John  L.  Gray  were 
severally  requested  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  to 
appear  before  the  committee  and  testify,  but  refused. 

2087  Mr.  McEwen  does  not  object  to  the  report  as  a  report, 
but  reserves  an  objection  as  to  its  acceptance  as  evidence 
or  to  its  evidentiary  effect. 

2088  "Mr.  Mitchell:  On  behalf  of  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners I  object  to  its  acceptance  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
not  admissible  unless  followed  up  by  testimony  connect- 
ing the  Ottumwa  incident  with  some  member  of  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioner's  office  and  ask  to  reserve  the  right  on 
behalf  of  the  Election  Commissioners  to  strike  the  report 
out  later." 

No  ruling  is  made  on  this  by  the  chairman. 

2089  In  view  of  the  report  of  the  sub-committee,  Mr.  Deneen 
moves  for  a  ruling  on  the  statements  of  Pickler,  Arrison 
and  Gray  prepared  by  Mr.  Duke  heretofore  offered  in  evi- 
dence by  Mr.  Deneen  and  withheld  from  the  record  by  the 
committee  subject  to  a  farther  ruling. 

Mr.  McEwen  renews  and  argues  his  objection  to  the  in- 


» 


Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellennann.  437 

troduction  of  the  Duke  statement  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
hearsay. 

2092  Mr.  Frank  Walker  appears  as  personal  attorney  for  An- 
drew Lawrence  and  objects  to  the  admission  of  the  state- 
ment on  the  ground  it  is  hearsay  and  on  the  ground  that 
one  of  the  persons  mentioned  in  the  statement,  Charles 
Walsh,  was  in  Ottumwa  when  the  sub-committee  was  there 
and  was  not  called  by  the  sub-committee ;  and  also  because 
Mr.  Andrew  Lawrence,  named  in  the  statement,  had  left 
the  state  after  having  asked  the  committee,  through  his 
counsel,  if  they  desired  him  as  a  witness  to  which  the  com- 
mittee had  responded  that  at  that  time  they  were  not  pre- 
pared to  call  him  as  a  witness  or  state  that  they  would  call 
him  hereafter,  and  that  therefore  Mr.  Lawrence  under- 
stood he  could  leave  the  state  with  safety,  and  because  the 
publication  of  the  statement  following  its  admission  by 
the  committee  would  deprive  anybody  of  recourse  against 
anyone  who  should  publish  it. 

2112  ' '  The  Chairman  :  Well,  I  will  say  that  on  the  morning 
that  the  committee  arrived  in  Ottumwa,  Mr.  Pickler  in  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  C.  S.  Deneen  and  myself  in  Mr. 
Gray's  office,  the  ex-chief  of  police,  who  was  a  party  to  the 
contract  with  the  Empire  Company,  made  the  statement 
that  the  $1,000  had  been  paid  to  an  attorney  in  Ottumwa, 
in  escrow,  until  a  certain  thing  shall  transpire,  not  stat- 
ing what  that  certain  thing  was,  since  he  stated,  I  be- 
lieve, that  the  Governor  had  seen  him  in  Omaha. ' ' 

2126  (The  committee  goes  into  excutive  session  to  consider 
the  question  of  the  admission  of  the  Duke  statement.) 

(The  committee  subsequently  returns  and: — ) 
"The  Chairman:    The  committee  for  the  present  sus- 
tains the  objections  entered  by  counsel,  wdth  the  right, 
however,  to  permit  the  matter  to  go  into  evidence  at  any 
time  in  the  future." 

2127  Charles  H.  Kellermann  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2128  Resides  at  1923  Ogden  avenue.  Witness  is  a  foundry 
man  at  Erie  and  Kingsbury  streets,  and  is  the  owner  of 
the  business  for  the  past  two  years. 

2129  Witness  was  associated  in  business  with  one  Robert  C. 
Barr  from  1907  to  about  July,  1911. 


438    Election  Commissioners  Discuss  Voting  Machines. 

2130  The  partnership  was  dissolved  before  the  voting  ma- 
chine contract  was  entered  into. 

At  the  termination  of  the  partnership  business  the  busi- 
ness was  wound  up,  a  balance  struck  and  adjusted  on  the 
books  of  the  partnership  at  the  time. 

Witness  was  appointed  member  of  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  in  December,  1910,  by  Judge  Owens. 

2131  The  witness,  Dr.  Taylor,  and  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
qualified  one  evening  at  the  same  time. 

The  voting  machine  matter  was  first  discussed  in' Janu- 
ary, or  maybe  February,  1911.  The  Commissioners  dis- 
cussed it  in  open  board. 

Witness  discussed  it  with  Dr.  Taylor  and  with  Mr.  Czar- 
necki. It  was  not  discussed  at  any  official  meeting  in 
January  or  February. 

2132  Witness  cannot  remember  the  substance  of  what  was 
said.     Nothing  was  said  about  the  Empire  voting  machine. 

The  first  discussion  was  about  the  International,  which 
was  the  only  machine  mentioned. 

In  the  latter  part  of  January  or  the  first  part  of  Feb- 
ruary Mr.  Kellermann  and  Mr.  Czarnecki  went  by  invita- 
tion to  see  the  International  machine  at  the  Great  North- 
ern Hotel. 

Witness  does  not  remember  that  Dr.  Taylor  went. 

Witness  thinks  that  Mr.  Petrie  and  Mr.  Hall  were  there 
at  the  Great  Northern  Hotel  to  receive  them. 

2133  Mr.  Petrie  and  Mr.  Hall  demonstrated  the  machine  to 
them. 

There  were  casual  talks  with  Judge  Owens  about  voting 
machines  before  this  time. 

The  talk  with  Judge  Owens  occurred  in  the  latter  part 
of  January  and  concerned  the  proceedings  of  the  old 
board. 

2134  Witness  cannot  recall  the  conversation.  Judge  Owens 
wanted  the  commissioners  at  an  early  date  to  investigate 
voting  machines. 

The  judge  and  the  witness  were  present  at  the  conver- 
sation and  the  witness  was  president  of  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners.  The  conversation  occurred  in  the 
judge's  chambers. 

2135  Judge  Owens  referred  the  president  of  the  board  to  the 
executive  clerk  of  the  board,  Mr.  Stuart.  Judge  Owens 
said,  "The  board  had  better  get  together  and  look  up 
the  proceedings  of  the  old  board  and  follow  out  what  we 


Witness  Visits  Factory  of  Triumph  Co.  439 

could  in  getting  in  voting  machines  and  having  them  in- 
vestigated." 

No  particular  machine  was  discussed  with  Judge  Owens 
at  that  time.  This  is  all  the  witness  can  remember  of  the 
conversation. 

2136  The  witness  made  a  statement  of  Judge  Owens'  con- 
versation to  Chief  Clerk  Stuart ;  cannot  recall  ever  giving 
it  to  anybody  else. 

Witness  does  not  know  how  soon  after  the  conversation 
with  Judge  Owens  he  saw  Chief  Clerk  Stuart.  It  was  in 
the  early  part  of  February. 

Witness  told  Stuart  to  get  into  communication  with  the 
various  voting  machine  people  and  have  them  bring  in 
their  machines. 

Witness  did  not  tell  Mr.  Stuart  that  Judge  Owens 
wanted  the  machines  purchased. 

2137  Witness  does  not  know  of  his  own  knowledge  whether 
Mr.  Stuart  got  into  communication  with  voting  machine 
companies.  The  records  show  a  long  list  of  them,  but 
witness  has  no  recollection  on  the  subject. 

Witness  reported  in  meetings  of  the  board  that  he  had 
sent  out  notices. 

2138  After  witness  talked  with  Stuart  he  talked  with  the 
commissioners  about  voting  machines  in  the  board  rooms, 
not  in  official  meeting. 

Witness  mostly  talked  with  the  two  commissioners  to 
gether,  telling  them  that  Judge  Owens  wanted  the  com- 
mission to  investigate  voting  machines. 

2140  Witness  visited  the  factory  of  the  Triumph  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company  at  Pittsfield,  Massachusetts ;  probably  in 
the  spring  of  1911 ;  maybe  in  March.  He  was  accom- 
panied by  Aid.  Herman  Bauler,  who  is  now  dead. 

2141  At  Pittsfield,  witness  met  Mr.  Farrell,  agent  of  the 
Triumph  Company,  who  invited  the  witness,  when  here  in 
Chicago,  and  paid  all  the  expenses  for  witness  and  Aid. 
Bauler. 

2142  The  factory  was  inspected  on  Sunday.  It  was  not  in 
operation. 

Witness  does  not  remember  whether  Mr.  Farrell  had 
a  Triumph  machine  on  exhibition  in  Chicago  at  the  time, 
or  whether  he  had  a  9-party,  70-key  machine  in  the  fac- 
tory, but  he  had  machines  there  and  went  through  the 
machine  more  thoroughly  than  the  International  people 
at  the  Great  Northern  Hotel.  He  opened  up  the  back  part 
of  the  machine  and  operated  it. 


440  Makes  No  Report  of  Visit. 

Witness  probably  spent  half  an  hour  in  examining  the 
machine  and  an  hour  in  all  at  the  factory. 

2143  Witness  is  a  machinist,  but  cannot  give  an  idea  of  the 
mechanism  of  the  machine  he  examined  at  Pittsfield;  it 
was  only  a  cursory  examination. 

Aid.  Bauler  and  witness  went  direct  from  Chicago  to 
the  factory  and  came  back  from  the  factory  to  Chicago 
on  Sunday  night. 

Witness  did  not  inquire  into  the  ability  of  the  Triumph 
people  to  manufacture  machines  by  the  hundred. 

2144  On  his  return  to  Chicago  witness  did  not  report  what 
he  had  seen  to  Commissioner  Czarnecki  or  Judge  Owens ; 
did  not  tell  either  one  of  them  that  he  was  going  to  Pitts- 
field.     Told  nobody. 

At  the  time  of  witness'  visit  to  Pittsfield  he  knew  that 
the  Empire  machine  was  at  the  Chicago  Election  Com- 
missioners' office. 

2145  Witness  knew  the  Empire  machine  was  manufactured 
at  Jamestown,  New  York. 

Witness  did  not  confer  with  the  agent  of  the  Empire 
Company  about  visiting  that  company  while  on  a  visit  to 
Pittsfield. 

Did  not  discuss  his  trip  to  Pittsfield  with  Mr.  Barr, 
agent  of  the  Empire  Company. 

Witness  did  not  go  to  Indianapolis  to  see  the  Empire 
noachine  at  any  time,  or  into  Indiana. 

2146  Witness  never  made  a  report  to  the  commission  con- 
cerning his  trip  to  Pittsfield  and  does  not  know  that  any 
of  the  commissioners  knew  of  it. 

Judge  Owens  knew  nothing  of  it  until  it  came  up  be- 
fore the  grand  jury ;  neither  did  Dr.  Taylor. 

The  witness  does  not  remember  whether  he  discussed 
with  Mr.  Farrell  the,  amount  of  money  it  would  cost  to 
equip  Chicago  with  his  machines,  or  if  the  Election  Com- 
mission was  going  to  buy  1,000  or  100,  or  1,400  machines, 
or  the  price,  or  how  long  it  would  take  to  make  them. 

2147  Witness  did  not  ask  whether  Mr.  Farrell 's  machine 
would  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Illinois  ballot  law  or 
discuss  the  primary  law. 

Witness'  attention  is  called  to  March  4th  as  the  day 
Chief  Clerk  Stuart  called  up  the  voting  machine  matter 
before  the  Election  Commissioners  and  thinks  his  visit 
to  Pittsfield  was  made  in  the  latter  part  of  April.  Again 
he  says  the  early  part  of  April  or  the  early  part  of  March. 


Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellermann.  441 

2148  Witness  has  read  the  minutes  of  the  meetings  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  occasionally. 

Looking  at  the  minutes  in  evidence,  the  witness  says 
Mr.  Stuart  called  up  the  voting  machine  matter  on  March 
4th. 

Witness  says  the  statement  of  Dr.  Taylor  moving  to 
open  a  voting  machine  competition  to  ascertain  whether 
there  is  a  practical  and  efficient  voting  machine  is  correct. 

2149  The  only  knowledge  witness  had  of  voting  machines  at 
that  time  was  such  as  he  had  testified  to  regarding  the 
Empire  and  Triumph  voting  machines  and  had  seen  the 
International  at  the  Great  Northern  Hotel. 

Witness  does  not  remember  whether  he  had  read  the 
proceedings  of  the  old  board. 

Witness  knew  at  that  time  that  the  old  board  had  re- 
jected all  machines  submitted  and  that  the  city  did  not 
purchase  any. 

2150  The  witness  believes  that  the  record  of  the  Election 
Commissioners  showing  that  on  March  24th  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  stated  to  the  board  that  Judge  Owens  wanted 
20  machines  installed  at  the  primaries  for  experimental 
purposes  is  correct. 

2151  The  statement  on  the  24th,  witness  agrees,  was  made 
by  himself  and  Commissioner  Czarnecki  made  a  similar 
statement  on  the  25th,  the  next  day. 

The  record  shows  that  Mr.  Farrell  was  there  and  ob- 
jected because  the  notice  was  too  short  to  get  his  machine 
on  the  field. 

Witness  did  not  discuss  the  matter  outside  of  the  board 
rooms  with  Mr.  Farrell,  and  thinks  that  Mr.  Farrell  had 
been  on  the  ground  for  some  time  and  had  been  talking 
to  the  board  about  his  machine. 

2152  Mr.  Farrell  had  also  talked  with  witness.  This  was 
some  little  time  after  the  trip  to  Pittsfield. 

At  the  meeting  of  March  25th,  the  record  shows  that 
Dr.  Taylor  said  he  wanted  experimental  use  of  voting 
machines  to  create  an  agitation  for  them,  and  witness 
thinks  the  record  is  correct. 

2153  Witness  did  not  discuss  the  matter  AVith  any  of  the  civic 
bodies  here  like  the  City  Club,  nor  with  the  newspapers. 

The  witness,  as  a  machinist,  does  not  think  he  under- 
stood the  voting  machines  as  they  were  explained  one 
after  another  by  the  agent. 

The  witness  was  voting  for  the  machine  for  experimen- 
tal purposes  to  see  if  they  were  practical. 


442        Dr.  Taylor  Moves  to  Install  Voting  Machines. 

On  March  21st,  it  is  witness'  recollection  if  the  record 
shows  it,  that  Dr.  Taylor  moved  to  install  16  U.  S.  Stand- 
ard voting  machines  at  the  April  election,  1911,  and  the 
machines  were  so  installed  and  used  at  the  election. 

No  Triumph,  International,  or  Winslow  machine  was 
used  at  the  election. 

The  United  States  Standard  machines  were  used;  that 
was  owned  by  the  Empire  Company. 

The  witness  never  spoke  to  Mr.  Barr,  about  voting  ma- 
chines during  the  voting  machine  competition.  Witness 
did  not  favor  any  particular  machine,  and  did  not  tell  Mr. 
Cannon,  his  predecessor  on  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners, that  he  thought  the  Triumph  was  the  best 
machine. 

2155  Witness  did  not  tell  Mr.  Cannon  about  a  week  before 
he  voted  for  the  Empire  contract  that  he  would  never 
vote  to  award  the  contract  to  the  Empire  Company,  be- 
cause he  didn't  think  it  met  the  requirements. 

Witness  knows  Mr.  Cannon  very  well. 

Witness  thinks  Mr.  Stuart,  chief  clerk,  prepared  the 
specifications  that  were  sent  out. 

The  witness  did  not  assist ;  was  not  consulted,  and  can- 
not remember  that  he  made  suggestions.  He  read  the 
specifications. 

Witness  does  not  remember  whether  he  made  any  sug- 
gestions when  the  specifications  were  read  at  the  meeting. 
Witness  thinks  the  motion  was  made  to  authorize  the  chief 
clerk  to  prepare  the  specifications. 

2156  Witness  reads  from  Election  Commissioners'  minutes 
the  following:  "The  chief  clerk  stated  that  it  was  time 
to  take  some  action  upon  the  voting  machine  specifica- 
tions, and  announced  that  with  Attorney  Mitchell  he  had 
prepared  a  draft  of  specifications  which  he  desired  to  sub- 
mit to  the  board. ' ' 

Prior  to  this  the  board  had  talked  about  specifications, 
but  not  at  official  meetings,  and  had  taken  no  action  re- 
garding them. 

Witness  had  discussed  the  subject  with  Commissioner 
Taylor.  Witness  does  not  know ' '  whether  the  other  mem- 
ber was  there.     He  might  have  been  around." 

2157  It  is  his  best  recollection  that  he  discussed  the  subject 
with  Commissioner  Czarnecki  before  that  time.  Cannot 
remember  what  either  one  said,  but  thinks  Dr.  Taylor 
was  present. 

2158  "Q.     Then  will  you  say  that  you  discussed  these  speci- 


The  Voting  Machine  Specifications.  443 

fications,  or  any  specifications  regarding  voting  machines 
with  Mr.  Czarnecki  previous  to  April  24th,  1911,  at  a  meet- 
ing? A.  Why,  they  had  a  copy  of  the  specification,  the 
old  specification,  of  the  old  board,  and  the  specification 
written  out  by  Chief  Clerk  Stuart,  we  had  copies  of  them 
ii^  the  board  room,  submitted  to  us  before  the  previous 
meeting,  have  every  one  of  the  commissioners — was  that 
an  official  meeting? 

"Mr.  Deneen:  Q.  Yes.  A.  Not  at  an  official  meet- 
ing." 

2159  Witness  had  not  talked  with  Judge  Owens  about  speci- 
fications before  April  24th. 

Witness  did  not  talk  with  any  member  of  the  finance 
committee  of  the  City  Council  or  with  any  experts  or  with 
any  member  of  the  old  board. 

Witness  had  read  some  of  the  specifications  of  the  old 
board. 

At  the  same  meeting,  witness  says,  the  records  will  show 
that  Dr.  Taylor  moved  that  the  matter  of  specifications 
should  be  taken  up  without  delay  and  that  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  moved  for  delay  to  consider  the  specifications, 

2160  witness  believes  from  the  record  "and  further,  he 
insisted  that  Attorney  Mitchell  be  present  when  the  speci- 
fications were  taken  up  and  that  time  be  given  every  com- 
missioner to  study  the  draft. ' ' 

Copies  of  the  specifications  were  there  before  that  day 
and  every  commissioner  received  a  copy.  Witness  can- 
not say  how  long  before  April  24th. 

Witness  reads  further  from  the  record  "Chief  Clerk 
Stuart  declared  that  the  subject  should  not  drag  any 
longer,  but  that  action  be  taken  within  a  day  or  two." 

2161  The  specifications  stated  that  1,400  machines  might  be 
required.  Witness  does  not  remember  that  it  was  pro- 
vided in  the  specifications  that  the  purchase  price  might 
be  paid  out  of  any  funds  of  the  city  not  otherwise  appro- 
priated. 

Witness  remembers  that  a  report  was  handed  in  to  the 
Election  Commissioners  by  the  Bureau  of  Public  Effi- 
ciency. Does  not  recall  that  it  "called  our  attention  to 
any  funds." 

The  specifications  called  for  the  delivery  of  machines : 
200  before  October  1st,  300  before  March  1st,  1912,  500 
before  October  1st,  1912,  and  the  balance  on  or  before 
March,  1913. 


444  Witness'  Limited  Knowledge  of  Machines. 

2162  Witness  has  not  consulted  with  any  manufacturer  to 
learn  with  reference  to  their  ability  to  meet  these  require- 
ments, and  has  no  knowledge  on  the  subject. 

The  specifications  call  for  the  deposit  of  a  certified 
check  for  5  per  cent  of  the  aggregate  amount  of  the  cost 
of  the  machines. 

Witness  did  not  know  the  price  the  machines  would 
likely  cost.  Witness  has  seen  a  list  of  machines  sold  in 
other  states  and  knew  something  about  the  price.  It  was 
something  like  $900  or  about  $1,000  and  1,400  machines 
would  cost  approximately  $1,000,000. 

2163  The  certified  check  would  be  for  something  like  $50,000. 
Later  certified  checks  were  filed  by  some  of  the  voting 

machine  companies.  Witness  had  charge  of  them  and 
deposited  them  to  his  private  account. 

Later  the  checks  were  returned  to  the  companies  that 
failed  in  the  competition  and  there  was  some  dispute 
about  the  interest  on  the  fund. 

Mr.  Mitchell,  attorney  for  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners, as  well  as  the  board,  knew  that  the  witness 
had  deposited  the  funds  to  his  private  account. 

2164  Witness  knew  that  when  the  banks  certified  the  checks 
they  assumed  the  responsibility. 

Witness  made  no  inquiry  regarding  the  standing  of  the 
banks  that  certified  the  checks.  They  drew  interest  while 
in  his  private  account.  This  has  not  yet  been  turned 
over  and  is  a  subject  of  dispute  between  witness  and  the 
voting  machine  companies. 

2165  The  specifications  provided  that  bids  should  be  filed 
May  22d.  Witness  has  not  consulted  with  voting  machine 
companies  to  acertain  whether  they  could  file  bids  in  25 
days  for  such  a  large  contract. 

Witness  did  not  know  that  bidders  would  have  to  be 
familiar  with  the  election  laws  of  Illinois  before  making 
bids  and  states :  "I  think  if  the  machine  was  submitted 
to  the  State  Voting  Machine  Commissioners  and  if  the 
machines  were  not  right  they  would  be  rejected,  wouldn't 
they?" 

Witness  knew  that  the  specifications  called  for  a  ma- 
chine that  would  meet  the  election  laws  of  the  state.  The 
primary  law  was  not  mentioned  in  the  specifications.  Tlie 
voting  machines  purchased  had  primary  election  attach- 
ments. 

2166  "Q.  Did  you  think  at  that  time  that  the  machines 
would  be  fit  to  be  used  on  primary  day,  for  that  purpose  ? 


Thought  Machinea  Intefided  for  Primaries.  445 

A.  I  expected  them  all  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
voting  machine  law  after  being  inspected  by  the  State 
Voting  Machine  Commissioners. 

' '  Q.  You  are  sure  that  the  State  Voting  Machine  Com- 
missioners did  inspect  those  machines  1  A.  We  have  the 
certificates  on  file. 

"Q.  I  don't  doubt  it.  I  want  to  get  it  clear  to  see 
whether  these  machines  were  to  be  used  on  primary  day? 
A.    I  don't  think  so. 

"Q.  You  thought  they  were  to  be  used,  didn't  you? 
A.    Why,  certainly. 

"  Q.  A  bidder  would  have  to  become  familiar  then  with 
the  primary  law,  the  election  law  and  the  ballot  law  re- 
garding the  voting  machine,  with  the  requirements  of  the 
voting  machine  law?  A.  If  they  built  a  machine  and 
it  was  not — and  did  not  have  the  knowledge  of  the  voting 
machine  law,  it  would  be  rejected,  wouldn't  it? 

"Q.  Certainly.  They  would  have  to  become  familiar 
with  that.    A.    Certainly. 

"Q.  They  would  have  to  become  familiar  with  our  pe- 
culiar system  here  for  cumulative  voting?  A.  I  believe 
so. 

"Q.  You  understood  that  is  peculiar  to  this  state, 
didn't  you?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  Also,  with  group  voting,  for  members  of  the  leg- 
islature, sanitary  trustees,  county  commissioners,  etc.? 

A.     Yes. 
2167     ' '  Q.     And  the  woman 's  voting  law  of  Illinois,  as  it  then 
was  ?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  And  have  to  arrange  to  get  a  certified  check  for 
$50,000  in  a  responsible  bank  to  meet  the  bids  ?     A.    Yes. 

"Q.  And  would  have  to  file  a  bond  from  $200,000  to 
$250,000,  to  keep  faith  on  their  bids?     A.    Yes. 

"Q.  They  then  were  required  to  study  Section  5  of  the 
Voting  Machine  Law  in  reference  to  financing  the  obli- 
gation, did  you  know  that?     A.    I  didn't  know  that. 

"Q.  You  read  that  part  of  the  law.  Section  5  of  the 
Voting  Machine  Law,  didn't  you,  in  regard  to  how  these 
were  to  be  paid  for?     A.    I  have. 

"Q.     Had  you  at  that  time?     A.    I  did. 

"Q.  Well,  they,  you  knew — you  required  them  under 
the  specifications  to  outline  a  scheme  for  financing  the 
payment  of  these  machines?  A.  I  didn't  construe  the 
law  so. 


k 


446    Meeting  Specifications  Was  Companies'  Business. 

' ' Q.  Well,  we  will  look  at  the  section?  A.  I  know  the 
section. 

"Q.     Sections!     A.    Yes. 

' '  Mr.  Deneen  :  Have  you  got  the  law  here,  Mr.  Whit- 
taker! 

"The  Witness:     I  have  the  law  here. 

"Q.  Section  5,  it  is.  A.  Here  it  is  (handing  pamphlet 
to  counsel). 
2168  "Mr.  Deneen:  (Reading)  'The  local  authorities  on 
the  adoption  and  lease  or  purchase  of  a  voting  machine 
or  voting  machines,  may  provide  for  the  payment  there- 
for in  such  manner  as  may  be  deemed  for  the  best  inter- 
est of  the  city,  village,  incorporated  town  or  county.  They 
may  for  that  purpose  make  leases,  issue  bonds,  certifi- 
cates of  indebtedness,  or  other  obligations,  which  shall 
be  a  charge  on  the  city,  village,  incorporated  town  or 
county.  Such  bonds,  certificates  or  other  obligations  may 
be  issued  with  or  without  interest,  payable  at  such  time 
or  times  as  the  authorities  may  determine,  but  shall  not 
be  issued  or  sold  at  less  than  par.' 

"Q.     You  read  that!     A.    I  read  that. 

' '  Q.  And  you  incorporated  that  in  your  specifications  ? 
A.    I  don't  know  whether  we  did  or  not. 

"Q.  'J' of  the  specifications!  A.  Have  you  it  there. 
Governor ! 

"Q.  Yes,  I  have  it  here  (handing  specifications  to  wit- 
ness).    A.    That  is  correct. 

"Q.  They  would  also  have  to  present  their  machines 
to  the  State  Examining  Board  those  25  days,  the  com- 
panies that  bid!     A.    That  is  correct. 

"Q.  Because  they  would  liave  their  check  for  $50,000 
up.  And  they  would  have  to  provide  for  equipment  and 
2168  capacity  for  an  output  of  500  machines  in  nine  months, 
they  would  have  to  extend  that  before  they  dared  put  up 
the  bond!  A.  I  guess  that  is  up  to  the  companies  that 
put  up  the  bond. 

"Q.  They  would  have  to  extend  that  in  25  days.  A. 
I  don't  know  about  that ;  that  is  the  voting  machine  manu- 
facturers'  business. 

"Q.  I  am  just  talking  about  what  these  men  would 
have  to  understand !  A.  I  presume  they  did;  I  can't  an- 
swer for  them. 

' '  Q.  They  would  have  to  arrange  to  get  money  to  equip 
the  factory  and  get  an  organization  to  do  the  work,  be- 


Witness  Thinks  Twenty-five  Days  Ample  Time.      447 

cause  if  they  did  not  do  the  work  and  meet  the  require- 
ments they  would  forfeit  their  check  for  $50,000  and  for- 
feit the  bond.     A.     I  presume  that  is  correct. 

"Q.  Did  you  assume  that  manufacturers  could  do  that 
in  25  days?     A.    I  can't  answer  that." 

2169  Mr.  Mitchell  objected  to  the  last  question  as  assuming 
that  the  factories  did  not  exist. 

The  Chairman.  Answer  if  you  can.  A.  Well,  ask 
the  question  again. 

"Q.  Did  you  assume  that  manufacturers  could  do  that 
in  25  days!  A.  I  didn't  assume  anything  of  the  kind. 
They  were  under  bond  and  if  they  did  not  furnish  the 
machines  in  a  given  time  it  was  up  to  them.  I  knew  noth- 
ing about  what  they  could  do. ' ' 

Witness  assumed  that  25  days  was  sufficient  for,  a  man- 
ufacturer if  he  bid  on  the  contract. 

2170  In  making  the  time  so  short  witness  does  not  think  it 
was  the  purpose  to  prevent  companies  from  bidding. 
Witness  thinks  it  was  ample  time. 

Four  companies  bid,  but  witness  did  not  know  how 
many  would  bid. 

2171  Witness  did  not  talk  with  any  companies  as  to  their 
equipment  or  power  to  meet  specifications ;  did  not  think 
it  necessary ;  nor  did  he  talk  with  anybody  about  the  prop- 
er time  to  elapse  between  the  advertisement  and  the  time 
for  filing  bids. 

Witness  has  read  the  reports  of  the  old  board  and  is 
asked  whether  he  knew  that  the  old  board  had  given  9 
months'  time  between  the  advertisement  and  bids  and 
answers.  "Oh,  I  believe  that  was  optional  with  the  old 
board.     They  could  have  given  them  24  months." 

Witness  thinks  25  days  long  enough  if  a  man  has  an 
equipped  factory  and  the  machine. 

Witness  did  not  know  how  many  equipped  factories 
there  were  in  the  country  at  that  time. 

2172  The  factory  at  Pittsfield  wtness  saw  was  a  building 
about  50  by  100,  two-story,  witness  thinks. 

Witness  does  not  know  the  output  of  the  plant,  but  the 
company  stated  that  if  they  got  the  contract  they  could 
enlarge  their  plant. 


448  Mr.  Walker  Produces  Marriott  Affidavit. 

VOLUME  XXII. 

Morning  Session. 
Thursday,  August  14,  1913. 

Charles  H.  Kellerman  resumed  the  stand. 

Direct  Examination  {continued)  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2174  Mr.  Walker:  If  you  are  in  session  I  want  to  bring 
something  to  the  attention  of  the  secretary,  without  mak- 
ing, any  speech  at  all,  or  referring  to  any  facts,  before  the 
witness  testifies.  Referring  to  the  ruling — in  view  of 
your  ruling  last  night,  that  you  would  still  hold  under  ad- 
visement the  admissibility  of  the  document  put  in,  I  wish 
to  offer  for  tli0  perusal  of  the  committee  the  additional 
suggestion  of  evidence  on  the  subject,  together  with  an 
affidavit,  copy  of  which  I  have  handed  to  Mr.  Deneen,  to- 
gether with  the  other  instrument,  if  I  may  be  admitted  I 
wish  to  say  that  the  witness  who  swears  to  the  affidavit 
is  Mr.  Edward  E.  Marriott,  a  citizen  of  Chicago,  a  resi- 
dent of  Chicago,  who  is  ready  in  the  room  and  quite  ready 
to  be  sworn  and  cross  examined,  if  you  wish  so.  I  wish 
this  committee  to  take  this  as  new  evidence  to  counteract 
the  other,  considering  the  admissibility  of  the  other. 

The  Chairman  :  We  will  look  this  over.  We  will  pro- 
ceed now  with  the  examination  of  this  witness. 

Mr.  Walker.  I  don't  want  anything  on  it,  on  that  sub- 
ject matter  at  all,  except  to  present  it,  and  not  interfere 
with  the  movements  of  the  committee  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  consider  the  proposition.  Mr. 
Marriott  is  in  the  city  right  along,  isn't  he? 

Mr.  Marriott.  Will  you  promise  me  an  opportunity  to 
appear  before  the  committee  and  testify  to  certain  mat- 
ters of  which  Lloyd  L.  Duke  testified  before  you  at  Ot- 
tumwa,  and  I  am  here  for  that  purpose? 

The  Chairman.     Yes. 

Mr.  Marriott.  I  wish  to  offer  further  evidence  that 
Keeley  of  the  Tribune  and  ex-Governor  Deneen — 

The  Chairman.  Stop  him,  somebody,  you  will  be  sworn 
after  a  while. 

Mr.  Marriott.  And  the  fact  that  they  offered  thou- 
sands of  dollars  for  evidence  against  Andrew  Lawrence 
to  drive  him  out  of  Chicago. 


Mr.  Marriott  Asks  to  Be  Heard.  449 

The  Chairman.  Sergeant-at-arms,  will  you  please 
make  the  gentleman  sit  down  at  once! 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  wish  to  state  that  the  gentleman  has 
stated  an  unmitigated  falsehood,  and  has  come  here  in 
defiance  of  the  chairman,  against  the  order  of  the  chair- 
man, and  converted  this  into  a  town  meeting;  he  ought 
to  be  censured. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  counsel  for  Mr.  Marriott. 
2175  Mr.  Deneen.  Last  night  Mr.  Kellermann  was  available 
and  we  had  anticipated  his  going  on  the  stand  for  more 
than  a  week  and  a  half  or  two  weeks,  and  Mr.  Marriott 
will  be  permitted  to  explain  this. 
2177  The  Chairman.  You  will  be  heard,  no  rights  of  yours 
will  be  lost. 

Mr.  Deneen.     I  suggest  that  he  be  suppressed  or — 

Mr.  Marriott.  I  have  a  right  to  ask  this  committee  to 
hear  me  and  I  asked  you  in  Ottumwa — 

The  Chairman.     I  say  now  that  you  will  be  heard. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  asked,  Mr.  Chairman,  just  a  minute,  I 
asked  the  attorney  for  this  man  whether  or  not  he  ap- 
proved of  this  conduct,  whether  or  not  he  approved  of  it. 

The  Chairman.    Mr.  Walker,  no,  it  is  not  quite — 

Mr.  Walker.  Pardon  me,  I  am  not  Mr.  Marriott's  at- 
torney and  I  do  not  appear  and  I  had  no  intimation  of 
what  he  was  to  say  and  I  wish  to  say  this,  however,  per- 
sonally, in  view  of  certain  publications  of  the  instrument 
before  this  committee  which  I  understand  was  Handed 
out  to  the  press  at  the  time  it  was  handed  to  the  commit- 
tee, I  have  some  sympathy  with  his  feelings,  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.     That  is  all  right. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  ask  the  chairman — 
2177     Mr.  Marriott.     Must  I  stay  here  all  of  the  time  or  will 
you  tell  me  when  you  will  hear  me  f 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  will  ask  this  attor- 
ney, Mr.  Chairman,  if  he  is  responsible  for  this  and  let 
the— 

Mr.  Walker.  You  have  heard  what  I  said,  I  never 
knew  Mr.  Marriott  was  to  say  anything  before  the  com- 
mittee or  intended  to.  I  have  not  had  any  conference 
with  him,  but  I  can  see  many  reasons  why  he  thinks  he 
was  injured,  and  I  want  you  to  understand  I  am  not  repre- 
senting Mr.  Marriott  at  all,  I  am  representing  the  very 
purpose  and  the  only  one  that  I  was  here  on  yesterday. 
I  do  say  this,  I  cannot  help  his  feelings,  or  emotion,  and  I 


450  Mr.  Walker  Explains  His  Position. 

think  they  are  largely  justified.     I  have  no  authority  to 
represent  him  at  all. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Mr.  Chairman,  yesterday  Mr.  Walker  re- 
peatedly tried  to  convey  by  insinuations  that  something 
detrimental  to  this  committee  or  its  attorney  would  be 
shown  if  certain  evidence  was  permitted.  Now,  if  an 
insinuation  like  that  was  made  in  the  court,  it  is  un- 
lawyer-like  and  unprofessional  and  harsher  terms  could 
be  applied.  Now,  he  is  trying  to  introduce  certain  state- 
ments without  being  responsible  for  them,  by  a  man  with 
whom  he  was  in  court  yesterday,  and  I  want  to  call  this 
matter  to  the  committee,  for  if  they  have  anything  detri- 
mental to  this  committee  or  its  attorney  or  anyone  con- 
nected with  it,  it  is  his  duty  to  show  it  to  the  conmiittee 

2178  and  not  give  it  out  as  threats  and  hints.  I  could  charac- 
terize such  conduct  by  very  harsh  names. 

Sen-  Landee.  Now,  Mr.  Walker  came  in  here  as  a  cour- 
tesy, this  Committee  permitted  him  to  appear  for  a  man 
whom  this  Committee  has  not  said  anything  about,  and 
taken  no  action  against.  Now,  another  man  came  in  and 
interrupted  the  proceedings  of  this  Committee,  while  it  is 

2179  examining  a  witness,  and  I  think  when  the  proper  time 
comes  it  is  proper  for  those  things  to  come  up,  but  to  take 
it  up  this  way  I  don't  think  it  is  proper,  for  anybody,  either 
the  attorney  or  this  witness  to  come  in.  When  this  witness 
gets  through,  we  will  give  him  ample  time  to  testify,  but  to 
come  in  this  way  and  I  think  it  is  not  in  good  grace,  I  don't 
think  it  looks  well,  and  it  has  never  been  called  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  Committee  until  yesterday  that  this  gentle- 
man had  asked  to  be  heard,  and  he  surely  should  not  inter- 
rupt the  Committee  while  there  is  a  man  on  the  stand,  while 
the  witness  is  on  the  stand. 

Mr.  Walkee.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  pardon  me,  I  never 
try  to  do  anything  by  innuendo.  I  handed  this  affidavit  in 
good  faith  to  the  chairman  and  I  had  no  information  or 
knowledge  that  Mr.  Marriott  was  or  intended  to  say  any- 
thing to  this  Committee.  It  came  as  purely  out  of  the  sky 
to  your  Honor  as  it  did  to  me.  I  wish  to  say  now  and  that 
I  have  yet  in  34  years  of  practice  to  lie  to  any  tribunal. 
The  whole  subject  matter  of  my  consideration  of  yester- 
day seemed  totally  improper  and  the  Committee  has  so  far 
sustained  it.  That  ended  any  discussion  of  mine  and  I  am 
not  going  to  discuss  it  now,  but  the  Committee  reserved 
some  future  right  in  which  perhaps  to  admit  it  and  I  want 


Mr.  Walker's  Explmmtion.  451 

to  counteract  that  and  introduce  a  paper  without  saying 
anything  of  its  contents,  handing  your  Honor  a  copy  and 
the  prosecutor,  I  have  no  other  myself.    Now,  then,  I  want 

2180  to  say  this,  not  knowing  at  all  that  Mr.  Marriott  was  go- 
ing to  say  a  word,  I  wished  the  committee  to  believe  me  on 
the  subject,  without  the  slightest  consideration — in  view 
of  the  procedure,  I  say  Mr.  Marriott  could  be  excused  for 
his  personal  indignation. 

2181  The  Chairman.  You  never  doubted  that  this  commis- 
sion on  the  promise  of  the  chairman,  made  in  Ottumwa, 
Iowa,  in  your  presence,  that  he  would  be  called  before  this 
committee  and  allowed  to  talk,  and  be  sworn  and  allowed 
to  talk,  did  you! 

A.  Certainly  never,  and  in  addition  to  that,  permit 
me  to  say  that  Mr.  Deneen  turned  to  me  yesterday  and 
asked  me  to  say  when  the  committee  had  ruled  if  I  wished 
to  call  Mr.  Marriott  now-  I  had  no  wish  to  call  Mr.  Mar- 
riott as  a  witness,  for  the  interest  I  represented,  when  you 
had  ruled,  that  you  would  not  admit  it  then,  so  I  said  no. 
If  Mr.  Marriott  desired  to  be  heard  I  suppose  he  might 
have  said  so,  but  I  want  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it,  or  at  any  time,  with  his  indignation 
or  request  of  this  morning.  Never  would  I  doubt  but  that 
this  chairman  would  permit  Mr.  Marriott  to  be  heard  when 
it  was  time,  so  that  he  could  be  heard,  but  I  see  he  must 
have  had  some  doubt  about  it ;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Mr.  Marriott  was  here  yesterday  and  I 
asked  Mr.  Walker  whether  or  not  he  cared  to  put  him  on 
the  stand  and  Mr.  Walker  said  no,  he  would  not  put  him  on 
the  stand,  and  dropped  it  then.  As  to  his  talk  now,  it  is 
purely  an  effort  to  get  down  in  the  sewer  and  try  to  intro- 
duce something  M-hich  he  knows  is  improper,  and  which  I 
believe  he  knows  to  be  false,  trying  to  take  advantage  of 
the  courtesy  extended  by  this  committee ;  I  said  yesterday 
if  there  was  anything  he  had  he  should  exhibit  it,  about  the 
committee  or  its  attorney,  but  he  refused  to  do  so  and  re- 
fused to  furnish  the  evidence — but  he  comes  in  and  offers 
an  affidavit ;  I  have  not  time  to  read  it.  I  have  not  had  an 
opportunity  to  read  but  a  page,  before  this  controversy 
started,  but  I  can  see  what  kind  it  is.  It  is  unlawyer-like 
and  unprofessional,  but  I  think  I  shall  call  the  attention  of 
the  committee  as  to  whether  or  not  it  will  be  permitted  by  a 

2182  gentleman  who  claims  to  be  a  reputable  member  of  the 
bar. 


452  The  Discussion  Concluded. 

Mr.  Walker.  I  not  only  claim  it,  I  am.  However,  I 
asked  the  chairman— I  suppose  he  will  give  me  credit  for 
that — whether  I  might  disappear  and  go  away,  believing 
that  document  would  not  be  put  in  evidence  at  all,  or  if  it 
was  I  might  have  some  notice  of  it.  The  chairman  will  re- 
member what  I  said  and  what  he  said,  and  it  is  only  in  view 
of  the  fact  I  could  get  no  absolute  information  on  the  sub- 
ject that  they  would  never  introduce  it  in  evidence,  that  I 
put  this  affidavit  in  for  this  committee,  in  that  connection, 
demanding  that  if  they  take  the  one  that  they  admit  the 
other  or  call  the  witness,  and  I  did  not  do  it  in  any  way  to 
give  anybody  information  on  the  subject  of  the  instrument, 
that  is  my  attitude. 

The  Chairman.  You  understand  the  committee  ac- 
cepted the  affidavit  made  in  Iowa  because  of  the  inability 
to  get  those  witnesses  in  this  state,  you  appreciate  that 
fact,  Mr.  Walker;  we  used  every  means  to  bring  those 
witnesses  in  Iowa  into  Illinois? 

Mr.  Walker.    I  certainly  do. 

The  Chairman.  And  will  further  use  all  honorable 
means  to  bring  them  into  Illinois  for  the  purpose  of  testi- 
fying before  this  commission.  It  is  for  this  commission 
to  say  whether  or  not  a  man  being  on  the  ground  within 
2183  the  jurisdiction  of  this  committee,  whether  he  shall  be 
permitted  to  be  sworn  and  put  on  the  stand,  or  whether 
in  lieu  of  that  an  affidavit  may  be  presented  to  this  com- 
mission. 

Mr.  Walker.  I  am  not  finding  fault  with  that,  the  com- 
mittee permitted  Mr.  Duke  there,  orally  or  otherwise,  to 
say  something  about  Mr.  Marriott,  but  I  am  not  inter- 
ested in  that  feature  of  it,  I  told  you  the  witness  himself 
is  here  at  any  time.  I  put  that  in  the  same  as  oral  evi- 
dence, and  if  you  desire  to  cross-examine  him  on  the  sub- 
ject, all  right ;  I  only  put  that  in  in  view  of  your  consid- 
eration, to  counteract  the  other  unsworn,  unsigned  state- 
ment. 

Mr.  Deneen.  The  purpose  of  it  is  to  increase  the  covert 
threat  made  by  him  yesterday  to  this  committee,  that  is 
all  the  purpose  of  this  proceeding. 

The  Chairman.  I  have  not  seen  the  contents  of  this 
affidavit.    However,  I  shall  read  it. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Shall  we  go  on? 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  with  the  examination  of  the 
witness. 


Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellermann.  453 

3184  Witness '  attention  is  called  to  the  meeting  of  April  26th 
and  the  statement  of  Chief  Clerk  Stuart  asking  for  au- 
thority to  proceed  to  advertise  for  bids.  He  says  it  is 
correct. 

2185  The  statement  of  Commissioner  Czarnecki  asking  time 
to  see  the  printed  drafts  of  the  specifications  and  that  of 
Commissioner  Taylor  asking  that  authority  desired  by 
Chief  Clerk  Stuart  be  granted  at  once  without  delay  are 
also  correct. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  had  all  the  opportunity  he 
needed  to  make  any  alterations  in  the  specifications  he 
desired. 

The  statements  in  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  April 
24th,  Commissioner  Taylor  stated  that  each  commissioner 
should  receive  a  copy  of  the  specifications  and  Czarnecki 
moves  that  Attorney  Mitchell  be  present  and  that  the 
reading  be  deferred  to  give  time  to  every  commissioner 
to  study  the  draft,  whereupon  Mr.  Stuart  stated  that  the 
subject  should  not  drag  and  that  action  should  be  taken 
within  a  day  or  two  and  that  Commissioner  Taylor  moved 
that  the  draft  be  taken  up  at  a  later  date,  are  correct. 

2187  Witness  calls  attention  to  the  statement  in  the  minutes 
of  the  meeting  of  April  26th  that  Chief  Clerk  Stuart  pre- 
sented a  draft  of  specifications  which  he  declares  "em- 
bodied some  of  the  additional  sections  taken  from  the 
old  sections  of  the  old  Board  which  Mr.  Czarnecki  pointed 
out  the  other  day." 

2188  The  minutes  show  that  Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved 
that  August  21,  1911,  be  fixed  as  a  day  for  filing  bids. 
Commissioner  Taylor  moved  that  the  date  be  made  May 
22d  and  that  Commissioners  Taylor  and  Kellermann  voted 
"aye"  for  May  22d;  Commissioner  Czarnecki  "no." 
Whereupon  Commissioner  Czarnecki  submitted  two  para- 
graphs to  be  inserted  in  the  specifications. 

The  minutes  show  that  Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved 
that  a  certified  check  for  1%  of  the  aggregate  amount  of 
the  bids  be  filed  with  the  committee  and  Commissioner 
Kellermann  stated  that  5%  was  not  exorbitant  "in  any 
line  of  business." 

Witness  does  not  know  anything  about  the  rule  in  the 
voting  machine  business. 

2189  Witness  does  not  think  that  $5,000  would  cover  damage 
to  the  city  for  failure  of  a  bidder  to  live  up  to  his  con- 
tract. The  Election  Commission  had  been  to  "quite  an 
expense"  and  also  wanted  to  "show  the  good  faith  of  the 


454    Communications  From  Voting  Machine  Companies. 

machine  companies."  The  commission  didn't  want  to 
crowd  out  the  little  machine  companies. 

Witness  thinks  the  small  companies  could  put  up  a 
check  for  $50,000  if  incorporated  and  in  shape  to  manu- 
facture machines. 

Witness  did  not  know  whether  any  machine  company, 
except  the  Triumph,  had  a  factory,  and  had  received  no 
information  about  other  companies. 

The  only  loss  the  city  would  sustain  in  case  of  failure 
to  comply  with  the  contract  Avould  be  inconvenience. 

2190  Commissioner  Czarnecki  asked  that  the  time  for  filing 
bids  be  three  months.  Commissioner  Taylor  stated  that 
25  days  would  be  sufficient  time. 

The  Election  Commissioners  were  not  in  a  hurry;  it 
was  not  a  new  question  with  the  public. 

It  was  not  the  public,  but  the  experts  of  the  old  board 
which  discarded  voting  machines.  The  public  always 
wanted  them. 

2191  At  the  meeting  of  May  15th,  1911,  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  received  a  communication  from  the 
Hoosier  Voting  Machine  Company. 

The  letter  was  considered  by  the  Board  and  the  Hoosier 
Company  to  date  has  never  presented  their  machine  to  the 
Election  Commissioners. 

The  company  asked  for  more  time  and  witness  thinks 
the  company  wrote  a  similar  letter  to  the  old  Board. 

2192  The  witness  did  not  look  up  the  records  of  the  old  Boai'd 
while  considering  this  letter,  but  Dr.  Taylor  did,  and  so 
stated  to  the  witness.  The  records  do  not  show  that  Dr. 
Taylor  made  this  statement  to  the  Board.  The  letter 
was  not  discussed  but  was  placed  on  file. 

The  Election  Commissioners  received  a  letter  from  the 
American  Voting  Machine  Company  dated  May  12th 
stating  they  had  received  a  letter  from  the  Commissioners 
on  May  10th,  and  that  12  days  was  far  too  short  a  time  to 
make  a  bid. 

2193  Witness  says  that  the  letter  was  received  and 
Mr.  Nickels  of  the  company  was  before  the  Board 
and  witness  talked  with  him.  Witness  cannot  say 
whether  this  was  before  or  after  the  receipt  of  the  letter 
from  the  American  Voting  Machine  Company.  Witness 
told  Mr.  Nickels  "any  time  he  brought  his  macliine  ai'ound 
he  would  receive  due  consideration." 

Nickels  didn  't  bring  down  any  machine.    The  American 


Protest  of  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency.  455 

Voting  Machine  letter  was  placed  on  file  without  discus- 
sion. 

2194  Mr.  Winslow  made  a  protest  and  asked  to  file  it  later 
in  writing. 

The  Commission  agreed  to  receive  Winslow 's  written 
protest  which  was  all  the  consideration  given  to  his  oral 
protest  before  the  Board. 

At  the  meeting  of  May  19th,  the  time  of  filing  bids  was 
extended  four  days. 

2195  This  was  done  6  days  after  the  receipt  of  the  latter 
from  the  Hoosier  Voting  Machine  Company. 

A  protest  was  received  from  the  Bureau  of  Public  Effi- 
ciency. This  was  discussed  informally  at  an  informal 
meeting  of  the  Board. 

2196  Not  officially. 

' '  Q.  Was  Mr.  Czarnecki  there  ?  A.  Mr.  Czarnecki  was 
always  there,  at  all  meetings ;  you  could  not  keep  him  out. 

"Q.  You  tried  to  keep  him  out?  A.  Never  did.  Couldn't 
get  rid  of  him. ' ' 

2197  The  protest  of  the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  called 
attention  to  the  subject  of  financing  the  obligations  in- 
curred by  the  Board  in  purchasing  machines  and  that  such 
funds  might  be  drawn  from  funds  of  the  Treasury,  the 
Public  Utility  funds,  the  Street  Car  Company  funds,  and 
so  forth.  This  matter  was  not  inquired  into  or  discussed 
by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners.  The  protest 
was  read  and  placed  on  file  without  discussion. 

The  facts  stated  by  the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  that 
Minneapolis  had  been  obliged  to  put  in  two  machines  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  600  voters  was  not  discussed 
or  investigated  by  the  Election  Commissioners. 

2199  None  of  the  various  matters  mentioned  in  the  protest  of 
the  Bureau  of  Efficiency  received  any  attention  from  the 
Election  Commissioners,  more  than  was  given  to  the 
whole  communication. 

Following  the  protest  from  the  Bureau  of  Efficiency  a 
protest  was  received  from  Mr.  Winslow,  stating  that 
no  company  could  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  specifica- 
tions and  furnish  500  machines  in  9  months ;  that  the  speei- 

2200  fications  discriminated  in  favor  of  a  bidder  with  adequate 
as  against  one  with  inadequate  funds  and  that  they  com- 
pelled one  party  to  the  contract  to  sell,  but  did  not  compel 
the  other  party  to  buy  voting  machines ;  that  the  certified 
check  required  was  too  large.  No  attention  was  given  to 
this  protest  other  than  to  receive  it. 


456  Time  for  Bids  Extended  Eight  Days. 

2201  At  the  meeting  of  May  26th,  Dr.  Taylor  moved  to  ex- 
tend the  time  for  filing  bids  from  May  26th  to  June  1st, 
four  days.  Witness  thinks  they  gave  notice  of  this  inten- 
tion in  time  to  send  out  to  bidders. 

2202  Witness  did  not  think  that  new  bidders  would  come  in 
by  reason  of  the  two  extensions  of  four  days  each. 

Neither  the  Election  Commissioners,  nor  witness  con- 
ferred with  the  Mayor  about  the  financing  of  the  voting 
machine  obligation. 

At  the  meeting  of  May  26th  a  communication  was  re- 
ceived from  the  Ergy  Voting  Machine  Company,  and 
placed  on  file. 
2204  This  was  also  done  with  another  communication  from 
the  American  Voting  Machine  Company  dated  May  18th, 
1911. 

The  American  Voting  Machine  communication  stated 
that  if  the  time  was  extended  to  June  30th,  1911,  they 
could  meet  the  requirements  of  the  bid. 

A  letter  from  the  Calkins  Voting  Machine  Company 
stated  that  it  wanted  to  make  a  bid ;  the  letter  was  placed 
on  file. 

The  letter  from  the  American  Voting  Machine  Company 
stated  that  it  could  not  comply  with  the  terms  of  the 
specifications,  that  it  would  take  30  days  to  complete  a 
machine  and  secure  the  approval  of  the  State  Commission 
and  that,  in  view  of  the  large  contract,  it  would  be  an 
injustice  not  to  extend  the  time  to  bid.  The  letter  was 
placed  on  file. 

A  letter  from  the  Hoosier  Voting  Machine  Company 
dated  May  1st,  stating  that  the  time  was  too  short,  was 
placed  on  file.    Witness  states  "They  had  due  notice." 

"I  notice  that  you  use  the  language  Mr.  Stuart  used. 
2205-6  Commissioner  Czarnecki  says  right  following  that: 
'After  reading  the  letters  moved  that  each  one  of  them 
be  given  due  consideration  and  that  an  opportunity  be 
given  to  all  of  them  to  come  in  and  bid ; '  and  then  Chief 
Clerk  Stuart  stated  '  that  all  had  due  notice  and  that  it  is 
too  late  to  seek  delay.' 

"A.     That  is  true. 

"Q.    He  made  that  statement?    A.    Yes. 

"Q-  Commissioner  Czarnecki  stated  right  below  that 
'that  some  of  the  letters  indicated  that  the  chief  clerk  was 
in  communication  with  some  of  the  companies  whicli  asked 
for  more  time,  but  that  the  requests  were  not  submitted 
to  the  Board,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  American  Voting 


Commissioner  Czarnecki's  Motions.  457 

Macliine  Company  of  Boston,  Mass.,  which  makes  a  defi- 
nite proposition  evidently  in  reply  to  a  request  of  the  chief 
clerk  concerning  which  the  Board  was  not  advised  at  any 
meeting  or  at  any  rate  that  Commissioner  Czarnecki  was 
never  even  informed  about  it. '  That  statement  was  made  f 
A.     That  statement  was  made. 

"Q.  On  the  bottom  of  the  page  there,  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  moved  that  'on  next  Thursday  we  do  not  open 
bids,  but  that  we  give  sufficient  time  to  the  various  com- 
panies asking  for  same  so  that  we  may  have  full  com- 
petition and  the  largest  selection  to  choose  from.'  He 
made  that  statement,  did  he?    A.    That  is  right. 

' '  Q.  And  Commissioner  Taylor  stated  that  if  they  did 
that  other  bidders  might  loom  up,  as  he  expressed  it,  and 
cause  further  delay!     A.     Correct. 

"Q.  On  the  following  page  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
moved  that  the  companies  be  notified  that  an  extension  of 
two  months  will  be  granted  for  the  filing  of  bids,  did 
he?    A.    That  is  correct. 

"Q.  And  he  was  ruled  out  of  order  by  you!  A.  He 
was  not  ruled  out  of  order. 

"Q.  But  the  motion  was  not  seconded;  Commissioner 
Taylor  declared  that  the  move  was  made  for  delay ;  there 
was  no  second,  and  the  motion  therefore  was  not  con- 
sidered?   A.    Yes." 

On  June  1st  the  bids  were  opened.  Bids  were  received 
from  the  International,  the  Winslow,  the  Triumph  and 
the  Empire. 

The  Calkins  was  present  at  the  meeting  and  requested 
further  time,  but  was  not  in  shape  to  put  in  a  bid  and 
2207  stated  so,  witness  believes. 

The  experts  were  appointed  at  the  meeting  of  June  3d. 
Mr.  Chamberlain,  Mr.  Abbott  and  Mr.  Wooley. 

Witness  did  not  know  Mr.  Chamberlain  nor  anything 
about  his  qualifications,  or  those  of  Mr.  Abbott  or  Mr. 
Wooley,  and  did  not  make  any  inquiries  concerning  the 
matter. 

The  names  submitted  to  the  Commissioners  were  ap- 
proved by  the  County  Judge,  "stating  that  they  were  men 
of  high  character  and  qualified  to  do  the  work." 

Witness  understood  that  Mr.  Stuart  selected  the  ex- 
perts. 

The  letter  of  Eugene  Gregory  of  June  15th,  1911,  was 
received  and  placed  on  file. 

A  letter  was  received  from  the  International  Voting  Ma- 


458  Further  Protests  From  Companies. 

chine  Company  dated  June  19tli,  1911,  pointing  out  in 
detail  many  objections  to  the  Empire  voting  machine.  Wit- 
ness believes  this  letter  was  turned  over  to  the  experts, 
but  will  not  say  that  it  was: 

2209  It  was  read,  but  not  discussed  by  the  Board. 
Witness  believes  that  he  manipulated  the  Empire  ma- 
chine to  see  if  the  objections  were  valid  and  well  founded, 
accompanied  by  a  man  named  A.  R.  Howland,  employed 
by  the  Election  Commissioners. 

' '  Q.  Did  you  experiment  on  the  machine  on  the  matters 
pointed  out  by  the  International  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany!   A.    I  did. 

' '  Q.  Well,  the  first  point  was  to  have  the  public  counter 
moved  to  the  face  of  the  machine  so  that  a  voter  could 
tell  for  whom  he  voted.  Did  you  look  that  up  ?  A.  I  be- 
lieve we  did.    It  is  so  long  ago,  two  years — 

'Q.  Have  you  any  distinct  recollection  about  it?  A. 
Not  at  this  time. 

"Q.  Tli.ey  suggested  you  place  the  woman's  lock-out, 
or  restriction  ballot  lever,  on  the  back  of  the  machine,  out- 
side of  the  curtain.  Did  you  make  inquiry  into  that!  A. 
we  looked  that  up. 

"Q.    When  you  say  "we,"  does  that  mean  you  alone! 

A.    I  and  Mr.  Howland. 

"Q.  They  suggested  'Build  six  or  more  primary  bars 
in  each  machine,  said  bars  to  be  operated  from  the  rear 
of  the  machine  and  outside  of  the  curtain,  and  the  face 
of  each  bar  to  be  sufficiently  large  to  carry  a  party  appel- 
lation which  may  be  readily    distinguished    by    election 

2210  judge  or  by  a  watcher. '  Did  you  investigate  that!  A.  I 
can't  recall  that  particular ;  it  is  so  long  ago ;  but  we  went 
over  all  of  the  machine. 

"Q.  And  to  'cover  the  face  of  the  ballot  with  celluloid, 
which  will  prevent  the  voter  from  marring  the  ballot  and 
will  prevent  the  placing  of  rubber  bands  on  the  lower  part 
of  the  key. '  Did  you  investigate  that  ?  A.  We  read  that 
over  and  looked  it  over. 

' '  Q.  On  which  machine  did  you  do  this  ?  A.  We  looked 
over  all  the  machines  there. 

"Q.  But  I  mean  in  particular  about  these  suggestions ; 
on  which  machine  did  you  do  this?  A.  We  looked  over 
the  Triumph,  the  Empire,  and  the  Winslow. 

"Q.    As  to  those  suggestions?    A.    Yes. 

' '  Q.    You  look  at  that ;  I  believe  you  will  find  you  are 


Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellennann.  459 

mistaken  on  that.  A.  Well,  I  say,  it  has  been  so  long 
ago,  I  don't  know — 

"Q.  These  suggestions  are  suggestions  made,  to  be 
made  on  the  International  only?  A.  It  says  'our  ma- 
chine. ' 

"Q.  Now,  that  your  attention  is  called  to  it,  you  did 
not  go  over  the  other  machines?  A.  I  told  you  we  looked 
over  all  the  machines  that  were  on  the  floor. 

"Q.  As  to  these  features!  A.  As  to  all  the  features 
that  were  presented  to  me. 

2211  "Q.    These?    A.    Eight  here  on  this  page,  yes. 
"Q.    You  looked  at  all  of  them!    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  Well,  this  is  entirely  with  reference  to  the  In- 
ternational, I  think!    A.    It  is. 

"Q.  And  has  an  argument  in  it  regarding  it?  A.  I 
don't  know  if  it  has. 

"Q.  He  states  here  that  this  machine  has  an  apparatus 
by  which  the  vote  can  be  printed  in  the  morning  before  the 
voter  begins  to  vote,  and  again  at  4  o'clock,  and  that  a 
complete  test  is  had  there,  a  check  on  the  custodian.  A. 
That  statement  was  read. 

"Q.    Did  you  investigate  that  matter?    A.    I  did. 

"Q.  And  investigated  the  other  machines  in  regard  to 
that?    A.    Yes. 

**Q.  He  called  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  ma- 
chine added  the  votes  into  one  sum;  that  this  other  ma- 
chine, the  Empire,  required  adding  by  the  judges ;  did  it 
not,  of  the  straight  votes  and  the  irregular  votes?  A. 
That  is  true. 

"Q.  Did  you  make  an  examination  of  the  other  ma- 
chines and  this  machine  with  reference  to  that?  A.  Yes. 
They  had  a  party-lever,  I  believe,  and  all  machines  with 
a  party-lever  have  that  feature. 

"Q.  And  the  fact  that  his  machine  would  weigh  600 
pounds!    A.    That  is  true." 

2212  At  the  meeting  of  June  30th,  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
made  a  motion  that  "this  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers, before  passing  any  further  in  the  voting  machine 
matter,  and  before  taking  any  other  action,  do  now  pro- 
ceed to  make  its  own  test  with  reference  to  the  grouping 
of  fifteen,  or  twenty  names  for  an  office  to  determine 
whether  the  future  requirements  of  the  election  condi- 
tions can  be  complied  with,  or  whether  the  adoption  of 
machines  at  present  submitted  will  limit  the  grouping  of, 
fifteen  or  twenty  without  the  dangers  of  facilitating  the 


460  Further  Motions  by  Czarnecki. 

casting  of  an  addition  or  more  illegal  voting  for  such 
grouped  office." 

2213  This  motion  received  no  consideration  or  second. 

"Q.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  to  be  wise  to  make  a  test 
when  it  was  called  to  your  attention !  A.  I  believe  from 
experts'  report — I  believe  the  experts  were  capable  of 
covering  that  ground." 

The  report  of  the  experts  was  silent  on  the  subject  of 
grouping,  but  the  witness  states:  "We  accepted  the  re- 

2214  port  and  we  believed  everything  covering  the  machine 
was  included  in  their  report." 

The  Election  Commissioners  did  not  experiment  on 
the  machine  to  see  whether  Commissioner  Czarnecki 's 
objections  were  valid.    They  had  the  experts  do  that. 

Mr.  Rowland  was  a  machinist,  and  had  been  in  the  em- 
ploy of  the  witness  for  16  years.  He  was  then  an  employee 
of  the  Election  Board.  He  was  not  asked  to  make  such 
experiment. 

A  resolution  was  offered  by  Dr.  Taylor  for  the  pur- 
chasing of  1,000  voting  machines,  and  by  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  that  the  purchase  be  limited  to  120,  and  also  that 
counsel  of  the  Commissioners  be  called  upon  to  submit 
information  regarding  the  financing  of  the  obligation. 

2215  Commissioner  Czarnecki 's  motions  received  no  second, 
nor  did  his  subsequent  motion  that  a  conference  with  the 
city  authorities  regarding  the  financing  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine obligation  be  had. 

.Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved:  "I  move  that  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  be  ordered  to  produce 
before  this  Board,  a  macine  which  will  have  the  objections 
of  weight,  cumbersomeness,  lack  of  restriction  of  inspec- 
tions, the  inability  of  the  voter  casting  a  straight  party 
vote  to  see  any  indications  as  to  the  names  of  the  candi- 
dates he  votes  for  or  against,  of  the  absence  of  the  party- 
levei",  the  absence  of  any  printed  record  of  the  counters 
before  and  after  the  voting  takes  place,  the  absence  of  a 
grand  total  of  both  straight  and  individual  votes  at  the 
close  of  an  election,  and  other  imperfections,  cured  and 
corrected,  before  the  question  of  passing  upon  its  merits, 
or  awarding  a  contract  to  that  company,  is  resolved  up- 
on." 
2217  Commissioner  Czarnecki  stated  that  all  the  imperfec- 
'  tions  mentioned  in  his  motion  were  pointed  out  in  the  re- 
port of  the  experts  employed  by  the  Board  of  Election 


No  Public  Examination  of  Voting  Machines.  461 

Commissioners,  to  which  witness  replied  that  he  "intended 
to  support  the  experts,"  and  made  no  further  investi- 
gation. 

Witness'  attention  is  called  to  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki's  motion  for  a  public  exhibition  of  voting  machines, 
in  compliance  with  Section  18  of  the  specifications.  It 
received  no  second. 

Witness  believes  that  this  provision  of  the  specifica- 
tions was  carried  out  because  "it  was  heralded  all  over 
Chicago  by  the  newspapers;  the  machines  were  on  ex- 
hibition every  day;  anybody  could  come  up  any  time  and 

2218  investigate  that  machine  any  time  they  wanted  to,  from 
March  4th  until  the  time  the  contract  was  awarded. ' ' 

"Q.  Was  any  time  fixed  when  men  could  come  up  and 
point  out  the  deficiencies  of  the  machine  to  the  Board 
and  have  an  opportunity  to  discuss  with  the  men  who 
were  manipulating  the  machine?  A.  There  was  no  time 
fixed,  and  there  was  nobody  came  up  and  pointed  out  any 
imperfections." 

2219  No  public  meeting  was  called. 

2220  Commissioner  Taylor  and  Commissioner  Kellermann 
voted  "aye"  on  Commissioner  Taylor's  motion  for  the 
purchase  of  1,000  machines.  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
"no." 

At  the  same  meeting,  July  1st,  1911,  Mr.  Winslow,  of 
the  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company,  Mr.  Farrell,  of 
the  Triumph  Voting  Machine  Company,  and  Mr.  Petrie, 
of  the  International  Voting  Machine  Company,  were 
present  and  demanded  the  return  of  checks  deposited  with 
the  Election  Commissioners. 

2221  Mr.  Winslow  made  an  oral  protest  at  length  against  the 
passage  of  the  Taylor  resolution. 

The  protest  included  the  statement  that  no  time  was 
fixed  in  the  resolution  wherein  the  Empire  Company 
should  furnish  a  sample  machine  under  the  contract  for 
1,000  machines,  so  that  other  companies  might  have  the 
right  to  submit  propositions  to  the  Board  in  case  of  the 
Empire  Company's  failure  to  furnish  the  sample  at  the 
time  fixed. 

2222  Witness  cannot  recall  the  time  given  the  Empire  Com- 
pany to  furnish  the  sample  machine ;  thinks  it  was  a  month, 
or  something  like  that. 

Witness  cannot  tell  when  the  sample  machine  was  sent 


462  Blue  Print  Packages  Unopened. 

in  by  the  Empire  Company,  but  it  was  brought  to  the 
Sherman  House. 

This  machine  was  a  9-party,  70-key  machine,  and  was 
brouglit  in  and  examined  by  the  experts  for  the  Election 
Commissioners  in  July,  "and  then  the  contract  was 
awarded. ' ' 
2223  This  machine  bore  a  plate  "Empire  Voting  Machine, 
Jamestown."  Witness  cannot  remember  the  serial  num- 
ber of  the  machine,  and,  asked  if  it  was  not  under  4000, 
believes  it  was  4000  somewhat,  ' '  but  I  would  not  be  posi- 
tive." 

2225  The  Winslow  protest  stated  that  the  seals  on  the 
packages  containing  photographs,  drawings  and  blue- 
prints accompanying  his  bid  had  not  been  broken. 

2226  These  seals  were  not,  in  fact,  broken,  but  were  still  in 
the  same  condition  in  which  they  were  received  by  the 
Election  Commissioners. 

As  a  manufacturer,  witness  does  not  consider  blue- 
prints, instructions,  or  photographs  would  be  of  any  use 
in  the  inspection  of  an  intricate  machine. 

2227  The  internal  mechanism  of  such  a  machine  could  be  ex- 
amined by  taking  it  apart  or  using  one  section  as  a  sample 
of  the  machine 's  operation. 

The  seals  on  the  packages  containing  the  blue-prints, 
photographs  and  so  forth,  of  the  "Winslow  and  Inter- 
national machines  were  not  broken. 

No  attention  was  given  to  the  complaints  of  these  com- 
panies because  of  this.  The  specifications  required  the 
companies  bidding  to  furnish  such  blue-prints  and  so 
forth. 

2228  Witness  does  not  know  why  the  blue-prints  were  re- 
quired. Probably  copied  the  requirements  from  the 
specifications  of  the  old  Board. 

The  experts  could  carry  on  the  examination  very  well 
without  blue-prints  and  photographs. 

Witness  does  not  remember  the  banks  that  certified 
the  checks  filed  by  the  bidders  with  the  Election  Com- 
missioners, and  never  looked  them  up  to  ascertain  whether 
they  were  solvent. 

2229  Witness  considered  the  checks  safe  when  mixed  with  his 
own  funds. 

Witness'  attention  is  called  to  protest  of  the  Triumph 
Voting  Machine  Company,  made  at  the  meeting  of  July  3d. 

2230  This  was  received  by  the  Board  but  they  did  not  call 
in  experts  to  look  into  it. 


One-Minute  Voting  Requirement  Ignored.  463 

Witness '  supposed  that  the  protest  that  the  voter  could 
not  vote  in  a  minute  on  the  Empire  voting  machine  was 
covered  by  the  State  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  and 
2231  believed  "we  paid  no  attention  to  it." 

Witness '  attention  is  called  to  the  protest  of  the  Inter- 
national Voting  Machine  Company.  It  was  received,  but 
no  hearing  was  given  to  the  company  after  its  protest, 
2233  and  no  investigation  was  made  of  the  charge,  in  the 
International's  protest  No.  4,  that  the  Empire  voting 
machine,  which  had  been  sold  recently,  had  been  thrown 
out  by  a  city  in  Indiana  because  of  its  inefficiency. 

2235  Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  that  the  Board  rescind 
its  action  on  the  Taylor  resolution  and  give  the  com- 
panies a  right  to  be  heard  in  regard  to  the  experts'  re- 
ports.   The  motion  received  no  second. 

2236  Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  that  "we  rescind  the 
Board's  action  of  last  Friday,  upon  voting  machines,  and 
that  we  now  enter  the  reopening  of  the  whole  proposition 
of  voting  machines."    This  motion  received  no  second. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  place  all  protests  on  file, 
and  that  was  all  the  consideration  given  to  them. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  that  the  time  limit 
of  the  Empire  Company  to  furnish  the  sample  machine 
be  fixed  as  October  1st,  which  was  carried  unanimously. 

2237  Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  that  failure  to  deliver 
the  sample  machine  on  or  before  October  3d,  1911,  should 
bring  negotiations  with  the  Empire  Company  to  an  end, 
and  permit  a  new  deal  on  voting  machines. 

This  received  no  second. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  moved  that — 

"I  move  that  the  final  test  upon  the  sample  machine  be 
hereby  declared  to  be  the  binding  test,  and  that  it  will  be 
a  test  by  the  experts,  by  the  public,  by  this  Board  and  by 
civic  bodies,  and,  further,  that  the  final  test  will  determine 
whether  or  not  any  installment  of  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  is  to  be  purchased ;  and  that  this  motion  be  hereby 
declared  and  ordered  to  take  precedence  over  any  action 
by  this  Board  heretofore,  which  might  be  understood  in 
anywise  as  inconsistent  with  this  motion." 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  moved  that  the  Empire 
Company  deposit  $25,000  to  guarantee  the  production  of 
a  sample  machine,  to  be  considered  a  bonus  or  compen- 
sation for  excluding  other  machines  from  competing  in 
Chicago  until  the  time  fixed  for  the  delivery  of  the  sample 


464  Section  18  of  Specifications  Ignored. 

October  3d,  to  be  returned  if  the  sample  machine  was 
furnished  by  the  time  named. 

These  motions  did  not  receive  a  second. 

"Mr.  WiNSLOw.  Chairman  Kellermann,  do  you  know 
of  any  public  examinations  held  under  Section  18,  of  the 
specifications  ? 

"A.    That  is  correct. " 

The  question  was  asked  "What  did  you  answer? 

"A.    I  know  of  none. ' ' 

2239  In  reply  to  the  Winslow  protest,  Commissioner  Taylor 
stated  that  the  Board  had  made  exhaustive  examination 
of  voting  machines,  and  the  public  has  been  furnished  an 
opportunity  to  get  acquainted  with  them  by  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners. 

2240  Witness  told  Mr.  Hall  of  the  International,  that  he  voted 
for  the  Taylor  resolution  because  he  relied  on  the  findings 
of  the  experts. 

Commissioner  Taylor  stated  that  he  did  so  because  he 
relied  upon  the  experts'  and  his  own  examinations. 

2241  At  the  meeting  of  July  21st,  Commissioner  Czarnecki 
stated  "I  wish  to  submit  a  motion  (reading  motion  as 
follows) :  'Whereas,  a  sample  machine  submitted  is  not 
the  sample  of  the  device  which  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company  proposed  to  furnish  to  this  Board,  as  indicated 
by  the  report  of  W.  L.  Abbott,  Paul  M.  Chamberlain  and 
William  Wooley,  today,  but  contains  a  releasing  lever 
which  the  machine  formerly  submitted,  did  not  have,  and 
which  releasing  lever,  upon  the  sample  machine  sub- 
mitted, the  three  experts  considered  to  be  undesirable; 
and  further,  the  experts  themselves  point  out  that  the 
present  slots  for  independent  voting  are  not  of  sufficient 
size; 

"  'Therefore,  be  it  resolved  by  this  Board,  that,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company 
still  has  nearly  more  than  two  months '  time  within  which 
to  submit  the  sample  machine  of  the  identical  construc- 
tion that  the  company  proposes  to  furnish  to  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners,  that  this  Board  here  defer 
any  further  action  in  the  premises  until  the  device  which 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  proposes  to  furnish 
is  actually  submitted  to  the  Board.  Friday,  July  21st, 
1911,  submitted  by  Anthony  Czarnecki. ' 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Q.    Did  that  receive  any  second ? 

"A.    It  did  not. 


No  Second  for  CsSarnecki's  Motions.  465 

"Q.     Did  it  receive  any  consideration.     A.     Did  not 
receive  a  second." 

2243  The  Election  Commissioners  investigated  the  accuracy 
of  Mr.  Czarnecki's  statements  regarding  the  two  defects 
mentioned.  They  left  it  to  the  experts,  and  witness  be- 
lieves the  deficiencies  pointed  out  were  made  good  event- 
ually. 

2244  Commissioner  Taylor  makes  a  motion  to  incorporate  in 
the  purchase  contract  conditions  for  the  removal  of  ob- 
jections pointed  out  by  the  experts  and  then  moved 

2245  "That  any  two  members  of  the  Board  be  authorized 
and  instructed  to  execute  and  deliver  a  written  contract 
of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  for  the  purchase 
of  1,000  voting  machines,  for  the  purchase  price  of 
$942,500." 

2246  In  the  contract  subsequently  made  the  time  of  delivering 
of  the  first  500  machines  was  changed. from  nine  months, 
as  provided  in  the  specifications,  to  fifteen  months. 

2247  Paragraph  11  of  the  contract  provided  that  the  pay- 
ment for  the  voting  machine  purchase  should  be  drawn 
out  of  current  funds  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

2248  The  contract  provided  that  the  specifications  should 
be  attached  to  the  contract  as  Exhibit  A,  but  did  not 
provide  that  the  specifications  should  be  made  a  part  of 
the  contract. 

Witness  believes  the  commissioners  examined  this  pro- 
vision carefully  before  they  signed  the  contract. 

2249  Commissioner  Czarnecki  asked  for  time  to  study  the 
contract  with  a  view  to  offering  an  amendment  to  it  be- 
cause "there  is  a  penalizing  clause,  and  there  are  other 
things  that  are  missing." 

Witness  says  that  Commissioner  Czarnecki  had  time  to 
examine  the  contract  before  this  time,  but  the  delay  asked 
for  was  refused  him. 

2250  At  the  meeting  of  June  22d,  1911,  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki made  a  motion  (found  on  pages  249  to  252  of  the 
minutes  of  the  Election  Commissioners)  concerning  which 
Commissioner  Taylor  stated  (page  251)  that  "all  the 
points  of  Commissioner  Czarnecki's  motion  could  be  en- 
tered of  record,  but  his  extensive  remarks  should  be  elimi- 
nated from  the  minutes." 

"Q.  What  was  done  with  it,  what  consideration  was 
given  to  it  by  the  Board?  A.  It  was  given  due  considera- 
tion. 

"Q.    That  ended  it?    A.    That  ended  it. 


466  Notice  of  Purchase  Sent  City. 

"Q.  Due  consideration  is  that  no  second  was  made  to 
it  and  not  further  considered.    A.    That  is  correct. " 

Other  motions  made  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  (found 
in  this  record  at  pages  2250  to  2252)  were  given  no  con- 
sideration. 
2252-3  Notice  was  sent  by  the  Election  Commissioners  to  the 
City  Clerk,  and  through  him  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil concerning  the  purchase  of  voting  machines,  the  time 
of  delivery  of  machines,  the  time  of  payment  for  ma- 
chines, and  so  forth. 

2253  This  was  the  first  communication  had  with  the  Mayor 
or  City  Council  regarding  payment  of  the  voting  machine 
obligation. 

2254  Under  the  contract  200  machines  had  been  delivered 
to  and  paid  for  by  the  City  and  300  additional  machines 
had  been  delivered  for  which  payment  has  not  been  made. 

The  Election  Commissioners  have  not  endeavored  to 
have  the  City  pay  for  the  300  machines,  nor  discussed  the 
matter  with  the  Finance  Committee  or  the  City  Council. 

2255  The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  has  not  done  any- 
thing to  repudiate  the  voting  machine  contract,  or  consid- 
ered the  suing  of  the  Empire  Company  for  deficiency  in 
the  machines  or  returning  the  machines.  The  Commis- 
sioners expect  the  contract  to  be  filled  to  the  letter. 

2257  Additional  machines  are  due  under  the  contract,  but  the 
Election  Commissioners  have  not  called  upon  the  company 
to  furnish  them. 

The  County  Judge  drew  a  warrant  for  the  300  machines 
delivered  and  it  was  approved  by  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners.  This  went  to  the  City  Council  where 
there  has  been  a  discussion  since  January,  1913,  as  to 
whether  it  shall  be  paid. 

2258  A  vote  has  also  been  had  in  the  City  Council  and  it  did 
not  appropriate  the  money. 

The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  to  date  has  not 
taken  steps  to  induce  the  City  to  pay  for  the  300  machines, 
or  discussed  that  subject.  The  Board  has  not  been  sued 
by  the  company,  or  has  it  discussed  with  the  company  the 
matter  of  entering  of  judgment.  This  was  discussed  in 
the  City  Council  by  the  Corporation  Counsel,  witness  be- 
lieves. 

Witness  has  not  heard  that  the  Mayor  suggested  a  con- 
fession of  judgment  for  the  machines. 


Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellermann.  467 

Afternoon  Session. 
Thursday,  August  1,  1913. 

Chakles  H.  Kellermank  resumes  the  stand. 

Further  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2260  Voting  machines  were  used  in  the  primary  election  of 
April,  1912,  witness  believes,  in  three  wards,  the  1st,  21st 
and  18th.    In  most  of  the  precincts  two  machines  were 

2261  placed,  because  the  ticket  could  not  be  placed  on  the 
machine.  Witness  does  not  know  that  the  names  of  can- 
didates for  committeeman  were  pasted  on  the  face  of  the 
machine. 

After  this  the  witness,  neither  personally,  nor  officially, 
took  steps  to  repudiate  the  contract. 

Witness  thinks  the  rent  of  storage  room  for  voting  ma- 
chines in  the  Pugh  Warehouse  is  $300  per  month. 

Witness  does  not  know  how  many  are  on  the  pay-roll 
at  the  warehouse,  but  thinks  there  are  a  custodian  and 
a  watchman.  Witness  says  there  are  not  12  or  15  men 
there. 

2262  When  the  machines  are  to  be  reset,  help  has  to  be  taken 
out  of  the  Election  Commissioners'  office  and  sent  over 
to  the  warehouse. 

Witness  believes  that  the  men  at  the  warehouse  are  se- 
lected by  the  Clerk,  Mr.  Stuart,  and  believes  that  the  cus- 
todian was  selected  by  Mr.  Stuart. 

2263  The  custodian  has  been  there  about  a  year  and  a  half. 
Witness  agrees  to  furnish  a  list  giving  the  names  and 

addresses  of  each  employee  and  the  ward  from  which  he 
comes  and  the  pay-roll. 

The  cartage  of  machines  has  been  about  $5  per  round 
trip  for  each  machine. 

Witness  does  not  know  the  aggregate  amount  paid  out 
for  storage,  cartage,  custody,  and  so  forth,  of  the  ma- 
chine. 

2264  There  is  a  record  of  it  which  the  Election  Commission- 
ers will  produce. 

Witness  does  not  know  how  many  machines  ' '  have  been 
held  in  custody,  or,  rather,  sealed  by  reason  of  orders  of 
court,"  by  reason  of  the  election  contests,  and  is  asked 
to  furnish  a  record  of  the  number  of  machines  that  have 
been  impounded. 

Witness  thinks  the  voting  machines  are  handled  three 


468  Commissioners  Approve  Warrant. 

times  in  preparation  for  setting  up  in  and  returning  from 
election  polling  places.    He  will  make  a  definite  statement 
about  the  matter  later. 
2265     Witness  does  not  remember  how  long  a  time  was  given 
by  the  old  Board  in  1907  for  filing  bids. 

The  statement  in  an  editorial  from  the  Daily  News  con- 
cerning gamblers  being  interested  in  voting  machines  was 
unknown  to  witness  at  the  time  contract  was  made. 

2265  "Q.  On  September  26th,  1911,  there  was  an  editorial 
which  was  read  here  from  the  Daily  News,  stating  that  the 
sample  upon  which  the  order  was  placed  bore  serial  num- 
ber 3592,  and  that  the  plate  on  the  machine  showed  it  was 
made  at  Rochester,  New  York,  by  the  U.  S.  Standard 
Company,  and  was  the  identical  machine  examined  by  the 
old  Board ;  do  vou  remember  that  editorial  f  A.  No,  sir, 
I  don't. 

"Q.    Never  heard  of  it  until  here?    A.    No,  sir. 

' '  Q.    And  made  no  investigation  about  it  f    A.    No,  sir. ' ' 

2266  Witness  read  both  the  oral  and  written  opinions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  reference  to  Empire  machine,  the  point 
of  which  was  the  failure  of  the  machine  to  afford  facili- 
ties to  the  average  voter  to  vote  in  a  minute. 

The  Election  Commissioners  did  nothing  after  this  de- 
cision to  annul  the  contract  with  the  Empire  Company  and 
have  done  nothing  to  induce  the  City  Council  to  appropri- 
ate $283,335  in  payment  for  the  300  machines,  but  the  Com" 
missioners  approved  the  warrant  for  them. 

2268  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

When  the  witness  took  his  position  as  Election  Commis- 
sioner, he  did  not  receive  any  instructions  from  Judge 
Owens,  regarding  voting  machines,  nor  about  his  duties 
as  election  commissioner. 

Judge  Owens  never  told  the  witness  that  he  wanted  him 
to  support  one  machine  or  another,  or  that  he.  Judge 
Owens,  favored  the  Empire,  the  Triumph,  International, 
Wilcox,  or  any  other  machine. 

"Q.  In  the  meeting  of  June  1st,  1911,  at  page  71  of 
the  copy  which  I  have  of  the  minutes,  there  appears  a 
statement  by  Mr.  Wheelock,  appearing  for  the  Empire, 
followed  by  a  statement  by  you,  and  it  is  in  connection 
with  the  matter  you  say  you  don 't  now  remember.  I  will 
read  it  to  you  and  see  whether  it  refreshes  your  recoUec- 


Testimony  of  C.  H.  Keller mann.  469 

tion :  '  Mr.  Wheelock :  It  would  seem  to  me  that  the  Board 
feels  that  any  company  that  would  be  in  financial  condi- 
tion to  manufacture  these  machines  as  required  by  this 
specification,  certainly  would  be  in  a  position  to  pay  the 
check  required,  and  it  seems  to  me  it  is  entirely  useless 
to  give  further  time,  a  thousand  people  may  come  in  here 
and  say  "I  have  not  had  time."  They  might  say  they 
only  had  not  had  time  to  raise  the  money  or  to  put 
up  the  check,  but  that  they  had  not  had  time  to  properly 
incorporate  and  get  the  money  to  build  a  factory  with, 
and  that  they  were  not  in  a  shape  to  manufacture  ma- 
chines ;  that  their  macliines  were  not  yet  perfected ;  and 
they  could  constantly  and  continually  be  putting  up  ob- 
jections and  asking  for  a  continuance  of  the  opening  of 
the  bids. 

"  'Chairman  Kellermann.  I  will  state,  Mr.  Wheelock, 
that  the  Judge  (Owens)  looks  at  it  in  this  way:  Should 
there  be  a  machine  that  has  not  put  in  a  bid,  he  says  to 
allow  them  to  come  in  and  exhibit  their  machine — 

"  'Mr.  Wheelock,    Yes. 

"  'Chairman  Kellermann.  (Continuing) — and  should 
their  machine  prove  superior  to  any  exhibited,  why  we 
have  a  right  to  reject  any  and  all  bids. 

"  'Mr.  Wheelock.  Sure,  and  I  will  say  it  would  be  the 
duty  of  this  Board,  if  a  better  machine  should  be  exhibited 
later  on,  before  a  contract  was  let,  and  these  machines 
could  be  manufactured  and  delivered  here  according  to 
these  specifications,  it  would  be  this  Board's  duty  to  let 
the  contract  to  that  Company. 

"  'Chairman  Kellermann.  Yes,  that  is  right.  I  think, 
gentlemen,  we  will  proceed  with  the  opening  of  the  bids.' 

"Q.  Do  you  remember  that  remark  by  you.  of  Judge 
Owens '  remark  to  let  anybody  that  had  a  machine  exhibit 
it  at  any  time !  A.  That  was  the  Judge 's  feeling  in  the 
matter. 

"Q.  Expressed  to  you  and  which  you  repeated  to  this 
Board  meeting?    A.    That  is  right." 

2271  On  his  trip  to  Pittsfield,  witness  saw  machines  and  parts 
of  machines  at  the  factory  and  believes  they  had  the  tools 
to  make  machines. 

2272  Mr.  Farrell  had  suggested  at  Pittsfield  increasing  the 
size  of  the  Triumph  plant  in  case  his  company  got  the 
contract. 

Witness  did  not  know  whether  the  Triumph  people  had 
the  tools  to  make  the  voting  machines  under  the  contract. 


470  Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellermann. 

Making  tools  is  a  slow  process.  Some  are  made  by  hand, 
some  by  machinery. 

Witness  did  not  know  about  the  equipment  of  any  com- 
pany but  the  Triumph. 

2273  "Witness  simply  had  information  that  the  various  ma- 
chines had  been  made  and  sold  throughout  the  United 
States. 

Witness  met  Mr.  Cannon,  member  of  the  old  Board,  at 
the  rooms  of  the  Election  Commissioners. 

Mr.  Cannon  said  that  he  had  a  man  from  Iowa  with  a 
machine  that  might  interest  the  Board. 

2274  He  did  not  give  the  name  of  the  man.  He  said  the  ma- 
chine could  be  put  in  a  grip  sack.  Witness  has  never  seen 
the  machine  and  Mr.  Cannon  did  not  express  any  confi- 
dence in  it. 

Witness  can  say  that,  in  his  consideration  of  voting 
machines,  he  informed  himself  sufficiently  to  form  an  in- 
dependent judgment  as  to  whether  the  machines  were 
practical,  efficient,  and  desirable.  His  judgment  regarding 
this  was  independent. 

2275  The  minutes  of  the  meetings  of  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners concerning  voting  machines  produced  here  before 
the  Investigating  Committee  are  practically  as  written  up 
and  are  to  be  taken  as  expressing  the  facts,  so  far  as  the 
witness  knows.  Mr.  Czarnecki  was  secretary  of  the  com- 
mission. 

The  certified  checks,  which  were  afterwards  returned 
to  the  unsuccessful  voting  machine  companies,  were  de- 
posited by  witness  in  the  Continental-Commercial  Bank  of 
Chicago. 

Witness  still  believes  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  is  a 
satisfactory  machine.  "  It  is  protected  at  the  points  where 
men  handle  them,"  and  are  an  improvement  on  the  old 
system. 

2276  Witness  still  believes  that  the  Election  Commissioners 
made  a  binding  contract  with  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Mitchell. 

Mr.  Eobert  C.  Barr,  formerly  a  partner  of  the  witness, 
was  no  relation  of  H.  W.  Barr,  agent  of  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company. 

The  witness  went  to  Pittsfield,  Massachusetts,  with  no 


Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellennann.  471 

particular  motive,    simply   upon   the    invitation  of  Mr. 
Farrell. 

2277  Witness  was  promised  nothing  but  his  bare  expenses. 
Alderman  Bauler  was  an  intimate  friend  of  the  witness. 
At  the  time  of  making  the  contract,  the  witness  thought 

the  Empire  the  best  machine  of  the  four  exhibited. 

2278  Witness  still  thinks  so. 

2279  There  was  no  concealment  about  the  proceedings  when 
the  voting  machine  proposition  was  under  consideration 
by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners. 

"Q.  Was  there  any  time  when  the  doors  were  locked 
and  anybody  comprising  the  public  was  excluded  from 
the  meetings?    A.    Not  to  my  knowledge. " 

The  public  freely  visited  the  Board  rooms  and  in- 
spected the  four  different  machines  while  they  were  there. 

2280  Witness  does  not  think  that  the  judges  and  clerks,  the 
watchers  and  challengers  were  specially  notified  to  at- 
tend and  inspect  the  four  machines. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  that  at  the  time  Winslow  filed  his 
protest  and  for  some  time  previous  to  that  time,  the  Win- 
slow  Voting  Machine  Company  had  been  trying  to  work 
a  hold-up  game  on  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  people? 
A.    I  have  heard  something  to  that  etfect. 

"Q.  Did  you  hear,  at  or  about  the  time,  or,  rather 
before  the  contract  was  closed,  that  the  Winslow  Voting 
Machine  Company,  by  a  representative  of  theirs,  asked 
Mr.  Barr  to  buy  out  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany by  paying  $30,000  down  and  $100,000  additional, 
contingent  upon  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company 
getting  the  contract!  A.  I  heard  something  to  that 
effect." 

2285  Witness  does  not  know  the  officers  of  the  Bureau  of 
Public  Efficiency.  Has  been  told  the  president  is  Julius 
Rosenwald. 

2287  Witness  does  not  know  of  any  official  connection  the 
Bureau  of  Efficiency  has  with  the  city,  county,  or  state. 

2289  Witness  believed  Commissioner  Czarnecki  honest  in  his 
opposition  to  voting  machines  and  does  not  think  that  any 
ulterior  motives  actuated  him  or  undue  influence  reached 
him  during  the  negotiations. 

2290  Witness  had  met  Mr.  Farrell  a  number  of  times  outside 
of  the  City  Hall,  Chicago,  of  evenings  in  a  social  way. 

Wtiness  was  president  of  the  United  Societies  of  Chi- 
cago, for  two  terms.  Is  not  now.  He  was  at  the  time  of 
the  voting  machine  transaction. 


472  Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellennann. 

2292  Mr.  Farrell  had  a  machine  in  Chicago  and  witness  went 
down  to  Pittsfield  to  see  the  Triumph  plant.  He  was  there 
Sunday  and  did  not  stop  until  Monday  to  see  it  in  opera- 
tion. Witness  did  not  tell  anybody  he  had  inspected  the 
Triumph  plant. 

2294  When  the  witness  and  his  partner,  Mr.  Barr,  dissolved 
partnership,  they  employed  about  forty  men.  Witness 
employed  about  the  same  number  after  the  dissolution. 

After  July  11th  the  business  was  not  increased,  it  fell 
off  somewhat. 

Extensive  improvements  were  made  in  the  plant  costing 
about  $10,000. 

Witness  received  no  money  from  Mr.  Barr  in  settle- 
ment of  their  affairs. 

Witness  paid  Mr.  Barr  about  $5,000.  This  was  about 
the  middle  of  July,  1911. 

The  expenditure  of  the  $10,000  and  the  payment  of  the 
$5,000  extended  over  a  period  of  about  one  year.  Witness 
was  not  making  very  much  money. 

2295  The  partnership  was  not  making  money  when  it  dis- 
solved.   Had  been  steadily  losing  money  for  a  year  or  two. 

Witness  has  no  objection  to  telling  where  he  got  the 
$5,000  and  the  $10,000  mentioned,  but  does  not  want  to 
state  it  publicly.  The  witness  was  willing  for  the  Com- 
mittee to  have  a  statement  from  his  books,  which  are  kept 
right  up  to  date  and  the  balance  drawn  every  month. 

2296  Witness  cannot  answer  as  to  where  he  got  the  $5,000 
and  the  $10,000  without  consulting  his  books. 

Witness  is  still  in  business  and  employs  about  fifty  men. 

Witness  has  been  a  machinist  for  years  and  because  of 
the  protest  filed  with  the  Commission,  made  a  personal 
examination  of  the  voting  machines. 

2297  This  was  before  the  contract  was  made. 

No  other  experts  were  present  at  the  examination  of 
the  machine  except  Judge  Owens'  experts  and  the  man 
Howland. 

At  the  examination  made  by  the  witness  before  the  con- 
tract was  awarded.  Commissioners  Taylor  and  Czarnecki, 
and  Mr.  Howland  were  present,  as  well  as  some  employees 
of  the  Election  Commissioners'  office,  the  witness  cannot 
name. 

Witness  also  had  the  representatives  of  different  ma- 
chines explain  the  deficiencies  of  their  competitors'  ma- 
chines, Mr.  Winslow  and  Mr.  Farrell. 

Mr.  Farrell  tried  to  point  out  some  of  the  deficiencies 


Testimony  of  C.  H.  Kellermann.  473 

of  the  other  machines  to  witness;  not  to  anybody  else 
that  witness  knows  of. 
2298  Witness  does  not  know  of  a  bitter  personal  quarrel 
between  himself  and  Farrell  when  the  contract  was 
awarded,  or  that  Farrell  made  certain  charges  against 
the  witness. 

2300  At  the  storage  house  for  voting  machines  the  Election 
Commissioners  keep  a  workman  and  custodian.  The  cus- 
todian stays  eight  hours  a  day,  same  with  the  three  watch- 
men who  stay  eight  hours  each. 

2301  The  machine  mentioned  by  Mr.  Cannon  to  witness  was 
made  by  Mr.  Gregory  of  Battle  Creek,  Michigan. 

Witness  saw  Mr.  Gregory  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 
Cannon. 

"Q.  Did  you  state  there,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Greg- 
ory, that  you  thought  that  the  Empire  machine  was  not 
a  good  machine  and  you  would  not  vote  for  it!  A.  No, 
sir." 

This  meeting  occurred  about  a  week  before  the  contract 
w'as  made,  is  witness'  best  recollection. 

2302  The  witness  talked  with  Judge  Owens  about  having  ma- 
chines come  in  after  the  30th  of  June  when  the  contract 
was  awarded,  but  did  not  expect  to  get  any  with  certified 
checks  for  $50,000. 

Witness  made  a  statement  that  if  a  machine  superior 
to  any  of  the  four  exhibited  was  produced  he  believed 
the  Board  would  have  acted. 

The  Election  Commissioners  did  not  advertise  that  they 
would  consider  machines  up  to  the  time  of  making  con- 
tract, but  they  made  no  secret  of  it.  No  announcement 
was  made,  but  if  a  man  had  produced  a  machine  it  would 
have  been  considered. 
230^  The  witness  has  no  independent  recollection  of  what  he 
said  about  extending  the  time  for  bids,  but  depends  on 
the  record. 

Witness  did  not  talk  with  Judge  Owens  about  the  quali- 
fications of  the  experts.  He  thought  the  Judge 's  approval 
was  sufficient. 

The  witness  did  not  talk  with  Judge  Owens  about  tlie 
protests  received  by  the  Election  Commissioners.  Thought 
the  judge  knew  all  about  them. 

Witness  thinks  Judge  Owens  received  the  minutes  of 
the  Board  meetings  and  knew  the  action  of  the  Board 
every  day. 
2305     The  witness  did  not  talk  with  Judge  Owens  over  the 


474  Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki. 

telephone  the  day  the  contract  was  awarded,  nor  at  any 
time  about  the  awarding  of  the  contract;  nor  did  he  re- 
ceive word  from  Mr.  Stuart  as  to  liis  views. 

The  witness  talked  with  Mr.  Wheelock,  attorney  for 
the  Empire  Company,  and  Mr.  Wheelock  thought  25  days 
was  enough  for  the  companies  to  prepare  bids.  He  did 
not  talk  with  attorneys  for  any  other  companies. 

2306  Witness  found  out  afterwards  that  Wheelock  was  at- 
torney for  the  Empire  Company. 

Witness  did  not  talk  with  Judge  Owens  about  the  finan- 
cing by  the  City  of  the  obligation  for  the  purchase  of 
voting  machines,  neither  personally  nor  officially. 

The  minutes  state  that  the  attorney  for  the  Election 
Commissioners  had  furnished  an  opinion  on  the  financial 
conditions  of  the  voting  machine  contract,  which  was  later 
to  go  to  the  Election  Commissioners.  Witness  cannot 
remember  that  this  was  received  by  the  commissioners. 

2307  Witness  was  a  candidate  for  County  Recorder  of  Cook 
County  in  the  primary  of  1912,  and  spent  about  $1,300  in 
the  campaign. 

2308  About  $800  was  contributed  to  a  committee  and  the  re- 
mainder was  outside  expenses  paid  out  by  the  witness 
personally. 

Anthony  Czaknecki: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2309  Lives  at  2121  Haddon  Avenue,  Chicago.  Is  a  newspaper 
man,  and  at  present  Election  Commissioner.  Was  ap- 
pointed Election  Commissioner  December  10,  1910,  when 
Judge  Owens  took  charge.  Had  been  employed  as  a  news- 
paper reporter  by  the  Daily  News,  on  and  off,  for  15 
years,  and  by  the  Chronicle  as  railroad  editor. 

2310  When  appointed,  witness  was  connected  with  the  La- 
Salle  Street  National  Bank. 

Witness  is  a  Republican,  a  minority  member  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners.  The  other  two  mem- 
bers are  democrats. 

2311  Charles  H.  Kellermann  was  elected  president  and  wit- 
ness secretary  of  Election  Commissioners.  William  H. 
Stuart  was  elected  Chief  Clerk. 

Witness  had  known  Mr.  Stuart  previously.  When  Stuart 
was  chosen  clerk  he  was  connected  with  the  Hearst  news- 


Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki.  475 

papers,  the  American  or  Examiner  and  had  been  with  the 
Chicago  Journal. 

2312  Witness  identifies  the  copy  of  the  minutes  produced 
by  Mr.  Deneen  as  the  copy  furnished  by  the  Election 
Commissioners. 

March  4th  was  the  first  time  the  voting  machine  matter 
came  to  witness '  attention.  Previous  to  that,  in  January, 
probably,  Mr.  Kellermann  and  witness  had  visited  the 
Great  Northern  Hotel  and  seen  the  International  machine. 

2313  This  was  the  only  incident  in  reference  to  voting  ma- 
chines prior  to  March  4th,  1911 ;  so  far  as  witness  knows, 
neither  the  other  commissioners  nor  Mr.  Stuart  had  ex- 
perience in  Election  Commissioners'  office  prior  to  their 
appointment  in  1910. 

Witness  had  not  discussed  with  his  associates  the  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines  for  the  City  of  Chicago  prior 
to  March  4th,  1911,  nor  with  the  County  Judge,  and  had 
given  it  no  previous  consideration  whatever. 

2314  On  March  4th,  Chief  Clerk  Stuart  brought  up  the  voting 
machine  matter. 

Witness  had  no  previous  knowledge  of  voting  machines, 
except  what  appeared  in  the  newspapers  when  the  previ- 
ous Election  Commissioners  were  considering  the  ques- 
tion. 

At  the  meetings  of  March  24th  and  25th  the  ques- 
tion of  installing  voting  machines  at  the  next  primary 
election  for  experimental  purposes  was  brought  up.  Tlie 
different  voting  machine  men  exhibiting  machines,  except 
one,  objected  that  they  could  not  get  machines  here  in 
time,  and  Mr.  Haight  representing  Mr.  Charles  H.  Mer- 
riam,  who  was  candidate  for  Mayor,  raised  the  point  that 
for  such  machines  as  were  used,  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners should  require  a  legal  safeguard  for  each  indi- 
vidual machine. 

2315  The  matter  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  Judge  Owens 
by  witness  and  the  Judge  said  that  "he  would  not  permit 
the  full  number  that  the  voting  machine  man,  Mr.  Barr, 
wanted,  but  that  a  smaller  number,  namely,  twenty,  would 
be  enough  to  start  an  agitation. 

The  only  machines  installed  at  that  primary  election 
belonged  to  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company. 

2316  The  machines  installed,  witness  understood,  were  U.  S. 
Standard  machines.  There  was  no  public  exhibition  of 
voting  machines  at  this  time,  but  some  machines  were 
in  the  offices  of  the  Election  Commissioners. 


476      Commissioner  Czarnecki  and  the  Specifications. 

2317  At  the  meeting  of  March  21st,  Dr.  Taylor  moved  16 
United  States  Standard  machines  be  installed  at  the  pri- 
mary election  of  April  4th,  1911. 

At  the  meeting  of  April  24th,  Chief  Clerk  Stuart 
brought  up  the  voting  machine  matter  and  stated  it  was 
time  that  some  action  was  taken,  and  that  he  and  Attorney 
Mitchell  had  drafted  a  draft  of  specifications  which  he 
desired  to  submit  to  the  Board. 

Up  to  this  time  witness  had  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
preparation  of  specifications. 

On  April  4th  or  April  11th,  Chief  Clerk  Stuart  said  that 
the  voting  machine  matter,  with  reference  to  which  he 
had  sent  out  letters,  would  be  taken  up  after  the  Election 
Commissioners  moved  to  their  new  quarters. 

2318  At  that  time  Mr.  Stuart  did  not  have  the  specifications 
to  submit  to  the  Board. 

The  draft  of  specifications  submitted  by  Mr.  Stuart 
April  24th,  was  a  draft  form  taken  partly  from  the  old 
Board  of  specifications,  copies  of  which  were  present, 
with  many  things  left  out. 

"Witness  asked  time  to  make  a  comparison  of  the  speci- 
fications with  those  of  the  old  Board.  Chief  Clerk  Stuart 
stated  that  the  matters  left  out  were  not  important. 

2319  Dr.  Taylor  moved  that  the  draft  be  taken  up  at  a  later 
date  and  the  Election  Commissioners,  had  an  informal 
talk  that  afternoon,  and  probably  the  next  day. 

1400  machines  are  mentioned  in  the  specifications,  the 
witness  thinks,  because  it  would  be  nearer  to  one  machine 
for  each  precinct. 

The  voting  machine  law  requiring  600  voters  to  a  pre- 
cinct, would  reduce  the  precinct  to  about  700. 

2320  Two  days  later  the  matter  came  up  again  and  witness 
made  motion  that  two  bonds  be  required  as  in  the  old 
specifications,  and  for  the  full  value  of  the  machines.  One 
bond  was  finally  adopted. 

Witness  also  moved  for  a  certified  check  of  1%  instead 
of  5%  of  the  aggregate  price  to  be  required  of  the  bidders 
and  that  120  machines  be  purchased  instead  of  1200  as 
desired  by  the  other  commissioners.  None  of  these  mo- 
tions received  a  second  or  was  considered. 

Witness  thought  1%  sufficient  because  he  could  not  see 
what  loss,  except  preliminary  expense  of  advertising  and 
other  incidental  expenses,  the  Board  would  be  put  to  by 
failure  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  bid. 

2321  Between  the  time  the  first  draft  of  specifications  was 


Short  Time  Allowed  for  Bids.  477 

submitted  by  Mr.  Stuart,  April  24th,  and  this  time,  two 
days,  witness  had  had  various  consultations  and  made 
inquiries  into  the  legal  requirements  as  to  what  the  speci- 
fications should  be  and  it  was  after  these  consultations 
that  witness '  motions  were  made. 

At  this  time  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  was 
busy  about  the  election  contest  and  in  canvassing  the  votes 
of  the  1400  election  precincts  of  the  city  at  the  election 
of  April  4th  just  previous. 

2322  And  also  about  moving  its  headquarters  from  the  Band 
McNally  Building  to  the  County  Building,  which  began 
on  April  18th  and  lasted  a  week. 

2323  On  April  lltli,  also,  there  was  a  judicial  primary  elec- 
tion and  the  commissioners  were  at  work  on  all  these 
things. 

Witness  moved  to  extend  the  time  for  filing  bids  from 
25  days  to  3  months  because  he  did  not  consider  25  days 
time  enough.  The  witness  cited  to  the  Board  the  fact  that 
the  old  Board  had  given  from  January  15th  to  September 
15th,  1909,  for  filing  bids.  Witness'  motion  received  no 
second. 

2324  The  time  was  fixed  at  25  days ;  that  is,  from  April  28th, 
when  the  specifications  were  advertised,  to  May  22d,  when 
the  bids  must  be  filed. 

After  the  draft  of  specifications  was  received,  the  wit- 
ness moved  for  time  to  examine  them.  Dr.  Taylor  moved 
that  Chief  Clerk  Stuart  be  given  authority  asked  by  him 
to  proceed  at  once  and  without  delay  to  advertise.  Wit- 
ness '  motion  was  not  seconded  and  no  time  was  given  wit- 
ness to  read  the  proof. 

Witness  signed  the  specifications  as  secretary  in  the 
same  form  as  the  old  specifications. 

2325  On  May  15tli  the  Election  Commissioners  received  a 
communication  from  the  Wheeler  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany which  was  read.  Also  a  communication  from  the 
American  Voting  Machine  Company,  stating  that  they 
had  received  a  letter  from  the  Commissioners  today,  the 
10th,  giving  them  only  12  days  to  file  bids,  and  asking 
an  extension  of  time. 

Mr.  Winslow  of  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company, 
appeared  before  the  Commissioners,  and  made  a  protest 
against  permitting  any  but  a  70-key,  9-party  machine  to 
enter  the  voting  machine  contest,  claiming  he  had  such 
a  machine  which  would  meet  the  requirements  of  the  ballot 
law. 


478  Disposition  Made  of  Protests. 

The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  took  the  position 
that  a  smaller  machine  might  be  exhibited,  but  a  sample 
9-party,  70-key  machine  must  be  finally  submitted. 
2326  A  protest  was  also  received  later  from  the  Bureau  of 
Efficiency  and  at  the  same  meeting  the  labor  leaders  ap- 
peared and  raised  the  question  about  union  labor. 

All  of  the  protests  were  placed  on  file  by  a  vote  of  1  to  2, 
the  witness  uniformly  voting  against  this  disposition  of 
the  protests. 

The  time  for  filing  bids  was  extended  twice,  four  days 
each  time,  from  May  22d  to  June  1st. 
2329     Witness  does  not  remember  whether  the  protest  of  the 
Bureau  of  Efficiency  was  read.    It  was  placed  on  file  by 
the  witness. 

"Dr.  Taylor  moved  that  the  protest  of  Mr.  Winslow  and 
the  communication  of  the  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Effi- 
ciency be  received  and  placed  on  file." 

The  witness  moved  that  the  disposition  of  the  matter 
be  deferred  until  the  following  morning,  so  as  to  go  over 
the  proposition  and  write  the  parties  with  a  view  of  agree- 
ing or  dissenting.  Witness'  motion  received  no  second 
and  Commissioner  Taylor's  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote 
of  Commissioners  Taylor  and  Kellermann. 

No  discussion  was  had  in  the  Board  meetings,  of  any 
of  the  questions  raised  by  the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency. 

2328  No  election  commissioner  had  discussed  with  the 
Finance  Committee,  the  City  Council,  or  the  City  Comp- 
troller, the  subject  of  supplying  funds  to  purchase  voting 
machines,  and  no  written  opinion  had  been  received  on 
the  subject,  from  the  attorney  of  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners. Mr.  Mitchell  might  have  stated  something  on  the 
subject. 

At  the  meeting  of  May  24th,  letters  of  protest  were 
received  from  the  Ergy  Register  Company,  the  National 

2329  Voto  Meter  Company,  the  American  Voting  Machine 
Company,  asking  for  extension  of  time.  Also  from  the 
Calkins  Voting  Machine  Company,  from  the  American 
Voting  Machine  Company,  of  Wooster,  Ohio,  and  from 
the  Hoosier  Voting  Machine  Company.  All  these  protests 
were  ordered  placed  on  file.  The  points  raised  in  the 
letters  were  given  no  consideration  by  the  Board.  Wit- 
ness moved  that  each  of  the  letters  be  given  due  considera- 

2330  tion,  and  that  an  opportunity  be  given  to  all  of  these 
people  to  come  and  bid. 

' '  Dr.  Taylor  stated  that  there  may  be  other  letters  pour- 


Commissioners  Opposed  to  Delay.  479 

ing  in  for  delay  and  that  the  only  thing  to  do  was  to  have 
the  letters  properly  answered  by  the  Chief  Clerk. 

"Chief  Clerk  Stuart  said  that  they  had  all  had  due 
notice  and  it  was  too  late  to  seek  delay. ' ' 

Dr.  Taylor  desired  that  the  matter  of  delay  be  taken 
up  with  the  County  Judge,  but  witness  does  not  recall 
any  conference  with  the  Judge  or  any  report  from  him 
concerning  the  matter. 

2331  "A.  I  think  on  that  entire  proposition,  the  Judge's 
position  was  that  each  commissioner  should  exercise  his 
own  judgment,  and  I  know  that  he  told  me  to  act  in  ac- 
cordance with  my  own  conscience  and  in  accordance  with 
what  I  thought  right,  and  that  he  gave  free  rein  to  each 
and  everyone  there  to  act." 

Witness'  conversation  with  Judge  Owens,  when  the 
Judge  made  this  statement,  was  had  early  in  the  matter  of 
specifications. 

2332  Bids  were  opened  June  1st;  at  that  time  there  was  a 
discussion  with  the  Judge  regarding  the  employment  of 
experts.    Mr.  Stuart  originally  suggested  three  names. 

Witness  did  not  know  the  men  and  wished  to  secure 
somebody  representing  educational  institutions,  so  as  to 
have  the  standing  backing  of  such  institutions.  Judge 
Owens  said  he  would  look  into  the  matter  of  experts. 

Mr.  Stuart,  in  fact,  named  them  first. 

The  experts  were  chosen  June  3d.  They  were,  Mr. 
Abbott,  Mr.  Chamberlain,  and  Mr.  Wooley. 

2333  In  discussing  the  subject  of  experts,  the  machine  men, 
on  June  2d,  opposed  the  proposal  of  letting  the  experts  of 
competitors  be  present,  and  the  resolution  adopted  was 
that,  the  expert  examination  of  machines  should  be  made 

2334  only  in  the  presence  of  the  representative  of  the  par- 
ticular machine  under  examination,  the  members  of  the 
Board,  the  chief  clerk,  and  attorney  for  the  Board,  and 
in  case  of  absence  of  a  commissioner,  a  proxy  for  him, 
but  that  the  above  rules  might  be  changed  at  the  will  of 
the  commissioners. 

Witness  voted  against  the  resolution  because  he  ob- 
jected to  the  proxy,  and  asked  to  have  the  members  of 
civic  bodies  applying  for  permission  to  take  part  in  the 
examination.    There  was  no  second  to  witness'  motion. 

2335  Witness  knew  none  of  the  experts  appointed. 

A  letter  was  received  by  Mr.  Kellermann  from  Eugene 
Gregory,  dated  June  15th,  1911.  It  was  read  by  the  witness 
and  submitted  to  the  Board  and  placed  on  file. 


I' 

I 


480  Taylor  Moves  to  Purchase  1,000  Machines. 

Also  a  letter  from  the  International  Voting  Machine 
Company,  dated  June  19th,  offering  to  improve  their 
machine  in  the  points  criticised  by  the  experts. 

2336  The  letter  was  read  in  the  presence  of  the  Election 
Commissioners,  and  placed  on  file. 

The  report  of  the  experts  was  received  by  the  com- 
mission June  26th,  1911. 

On  June  30th  witness  called  the  attention  of  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  to  the  faults  pointed  out  in  the  report 
of  the  experts,  and  asked  the  commissioners  to  make  their 
own  test  of  the  grouping  devices  on  the  voting  machines. 

2337  There  was  no  second  to  this  motion. 

On  the  same  date  Dr.  Taylor  moved  that  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  purchase  1,000  voting  machines. 
Commissioners  Taylor  and  Kellermann  voted  "aye"  and 
the  witness,  Czarnecki,  "no." 

Witness  then  moved  to  limit  the  purchase  to  120  ma- 
chines.   The  motion  was  not  considered. 

Witness  then  moved  for  an  opinion  of  the  attorney  of 
the  commission  regarding  financing  the  obligation.  There 
was  no  second  to  this  motion. 

Mr.  Mitchell  stated  that  he  had  furnished  an  opinion  to 
Judge  Owens  and  that  the  opinion  would  be  delivered  to 
the  commission  in  due  time. 

2338  Witness  moved  that  a  conference  be  had  with  the  city 
oflBcials  in  reference  to  payment.  This  motion  received  no 
second  and  was  not  discussed. 

Witness  then  made  a  motion  that  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company  be  required  to  overcome  the  defects 
pointed  out  to  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in 
the  report  of  the  experts.  ' '  Cumbersomeness,  and  lack  of 
restriction  of  inspections.  The  inability  of  a  voter  casting 
a  straight  party  vote  to  see  any  indications  as  to  the  names 
of  the  candidates  he  voted  for  and  against  the  absence  of 
a  party-lever,  the  absence  of  any  printed  record  of  the 
counters  before  and  after  the  voting  takes  place,  the  ab- 
sence of  a  grand  total  of  both  straight  and  individual  votes 
at  the  close  of  an  election. ' ' 

Dr.  Taylor  stated  that  the  motion  did  not  entirely  state 
the  facts  and  "should  not  be  considered  because  it  was  a 
move  for  delay. ' ' 

This  motion  was  not  seconded. 

Commissioner  Kellermann  stated  his  reason  for  award- 
ing the  contract  to  the  Empire  Company  was  that  he  was 


Witness  Asks  for  Public  Exhibition.  481 

2339  relying  upon  the  opinion  of  the  three  experts  appointed 
by  Judge  Owens. 

Witness  made  a  motion  that  a  public  exhibition  be  held 
in  conformity  with  section  18  of  the  specifications.  Dr. 
Taylor  stated  that  at  no  time  was  anybody  denied  the  op- 
portunity to  come  into  the  board  rooms  and  examine  the 
machines  on  exhibition.  Witness '  motion  received  no  sec- 
ond. 

2340  Witness  made  a  motion  for  a  referendum  to  deal  with 
the  question  of  expenditure  of  the  sum  required  for  pur- 
chasing 1,000  voting  machines.  It  was  not  discussed  and 
received  no  second. 

Dr.  Taylor  called  attention  to  the  large  vote  of  the  peo- 
ple in  favor  of  voting  machines  and  said  that  the  motion 
was  merely  for  delay. 

2341  Attorney  Mitchell  said  that  the  motion  was  for  some- 
thing illegal,  that  the  proposed  question  could  not  be 
placed  upon  the  ballot. 

Commissioner  Taylor  moved  the  adoption  of  his  resolu- 
tion to  purchase  1,000  voting  machines,  which  was  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  2  to  1,  witness  voting  "nay. ' ' 

July  1st,  1911,  there  were  received  from  the  Triumph, 
Winslow  and  International  Voting  Machine  companies, 
the  unsuccessful  bidders  for  the  Chicago  contract,  "pro- 

2342  tests  against  the  adoption  of  the  Taylor  resolution. ' ' 

Dr.  Taylor  stated  that  the  resolution  gave  the  Empire 
Company  no  legal  right  and  no  special  benefit,  that  it  was 
merely  a  notice  that  the  board  stood  ready  to  enter  into 
the  question  of  purchase,  upon  production  of  a  sample 
machine  of  a  proper  character  complying  with  all  the 
needs  and  requirements  of  the  election  and  voting  ma- 
chine laws  of  the  state,  and  that  if  the  Empire  Company 
did  not  comply  with  the  conditions  within  a  proper  time, 
everything  would  commence  anew. 

2343  Dr.  Taylor  also  stated  that  the  contract  would  contain  a 
provision  that ' '  if,  after  the  first  installment,  the  machines 
did  not  comply  with  our  requirements,  the  contract  will  be 
null  and  void." 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  that  a  time  limit  for 
the  production  of  the  sample  machine  be  fixed  not  later 
than  December  30th,  1911,  and  that  upon  failure  of  the 
Empire  Company  to  produce  a  sample  machine  within 
this  period  new  bids  be  advertised  for. 

Commissioner  Taylor  said  the  question  of  time  limit 
would  be  taken  up  next  Monday. 


482  Witness  Certifies  Blue  Prints  Unopened. 

"Mr.  Hall,  in  behalf  of  the  International  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company,  stated  that  his  company  expected  a  thor- 

2343  ough  examination  to  be  made  by  the  board  as  well  as  by 
the  experts  of  the  machines,  their  diagrams,  plans,  printed 
information  furnished  to  the  board  under  the  specifica- 
tions ;  that  he  desired  to  protest  to  the  board  against  the 
manner  in  which  the  investigation  of  the  International  ma- 

2344  chine  was  conducted ;  calling  special  attention  to  the  fact 
that  all  drawings,  instructions,  date,  and  information  to 
the  board  in  sealed  packages,  were  returned  unopened, 
with  the  seals  unbroken,  to  the  company. 

"Q.  Was  that  true,  as  a  matter  of  fact?  A.  Yes,  sir, 
they  got  their  packages  back  without  the  seal  being 
broken. 

*'Q.     State  to  the  Commission  what  you  know  about 
that.    A.    I  know  that  there  was  a  number  of  packages 
that  was  brought  in,  but  they  called  our  attention  to  them  . 
that  they  had  not  been  broken  at  all. 

"Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Hall  refuse  to  receive  back  his  packages 
until  you  had  certified  as  secretary  that  they  had  not  been 
broken?    A.    I  think  they  asked  some  certification. 

* '  Q.  You  made  a  certificate  to  that  effect,  that  they  had 
not  been  broken?    A.    Yes,  that  is  true. 

"Q.  You  wrote  on  the  envelope?  A.  I  wrote  on  the 
envelope  they  wanted  to  show — 

' '  Q.  Did  Mr.  Winslow  make  a  statement  to  that  effect, 
that  the  seals  had  not  been  broken  on  his  bid?  A.  Mr. 
Winslow,  on  behalf  of  his  company,  stated  that  the  seals 
were  not  broken,  from  the  time  they  were  turned  over  to 
the  Election  Commissioners,  and  that  he  protested  against 
such  ignoring  of  the  specifications. 

' '  Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  wrote  on  the  seal 
of  his  package  that  they  were  not  broken?    A.    I  think 

2345  they  came  all  at  once,  I  don't  remember  just  how  many 
packages  I  signed  for. 

"Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  the  seals  had  been 
broken  on  the  Empire  voting  machine  bid?  A.  I  don't 
know  that  the  Empire  called  my  attention  to  it. 

' '  Q.  There  was  no  complaint  about  it  ?  A.  There  was 
no  complaint  by  them. ' ' 

Dr.  Taylor  moved  that  "if  the  voting  machine  com- 
panies desired  to  present  a  protest  they  are  at  liberty  to 
do  so  in  writing." 
2347     ' '  The  Chairman.    There  is  a  gentleman  here  who  would 
like  to  be  entered  of  record,  for  the  Chicago  Tribune,  and 


i 


Mr.  Thomason  and  Mr.  Walker  Unite  in  Request.      483 

would  like  to  make  a  statement  at  this  time.    His  name  is 
Thomason— S.  E.? 

' '  Mr.  Thomason.    Yes,  sir. 

"The  Chaibman.  The  committee  should,  I  believe,  and 
will  grant  him  the  privilege,  as  they  have  the  other  attor- 
neys in  this  case,  to  make  a  statement. 

* '  Mr.  Thomason.  Mr.  Chairman,  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Cormnittee:  I  understand  that  there  was  offered  in  evi- 
dence yesterday  before  your  committee,  a  statement  of 
Lloyd  Duke,  of  Ottumwa,  Iowa;  that  an  objection  was 
made  to  that  statement  by  the  attorney  for  Andrew  Law- 
rence, I  believe,  who  is  of  record  here,  and  that  matter 
was  taken  under  advisement  by  your  committee,  if  I  am 
correctly  informed,  and  this  morning  there  was  offered  by 
the  attorney  for  Mr.  Lawrence,  a  statement,  an  affidavit 
of  one  Mr.  Marriott,  an  employee  of  the  Chicago  Exam- 
iner, if  I  am  informed  correctly,  with  the  suggestion  that 
it  be  considered  by  your  committee  in  determining  whether 
or  not  the  other  statement  should  be  accepted  in  evidence. 
In  view  of  the  conflicting  nature  of  these  statements,  it 
appeared  to  me  that  this  might  be  taken  to  be  a  sort  of  a 
contract  of  silence,  and  in  behalf  of  the  Chicago  Tribune 
I  desire  to  make  the  request  of  your  committee  that  both 
of  these  statements  be  accepted  in  evidence  by  your  com- 
mittee and  be  made  the  subject  of  the  fullest  inquiry.  The 
second  statement  having  to  do  solely  with  the  Chicago 
Tribune  and  its  general  manager,  in  its  contents,  I  think 
2348  I  am  pertinently  making  this  request  at  this  time. 

"Mr.  Walker.  I  wish  to  join  in  the  request  of  the  gen- 
tleman, I  think  it  is  but  due.  After  I  handed  this  affidavit 
to  this  committee  this  morning  in  silence  as  to  its  con- 
tents, and  I  asked  the  committee  to  consider  that  with  the 
other  document  before  they  passed  upon  their  motion 
because  the  committee  had  reserved  the  right  at  another 
time  to  introduce  any  evidence  or  let  in  evidence.  There- 
fore, I  am  here  for  the  purpose  of  saying  that  the  thing 
should  be  thrown  wide,  it  should  have  been  wide  open  in 
all  of  its  aspects  after  the  first  document  got  in,  put- 
ting the  documents  in  evidence,  and  now  that  something 
else  has  occurred,  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  both  docu- 
ments shall  be  in.  In  point  of  fact,  I  ask  it,  it  is  no  more 
than  right  to  ask  it." 
2353-4  "Mr.  McEwen.  I  wish  to  say  this;  this  question 
arose  last  Thursday.  I  objected  to  it,  representing  Judge 
Owens,  believing  it  was  not  proper  legal  evidence.     I 


484    Duke  Statement  and  Marriott  Affidavit  Admitted. 

thought  so  then  and  I  think  so  now,  because  I  thought  it 
was  unreliable,  I  thought  it  leads  oflf  in  the  by-ways  and 
the  hedgeways  and  paths  where  we  did  not  know  where 
we  would  end.  When  this  matter  came  up  today  I  had 
the  same  opinion  about  that;  I  have  received  word  from 
Judge  Owens,  practically  instructing  me  to  be  quiescent, 
I  have  received  word,  but  I  don't  want  to  be  considered 
as  withdrawing  objection,  I  can  be  overruled  and  sit  still 
and  quiet,  I  think  I  can  demonstrate  that  to  the  commit- 
tee if  you  give  me  a  chance,  but  as  a  lawyer  I  don't  feel 
that  anything  that  I  have  said  here  has  not  been  well 
taken  and  I  have  nothing  to  take  back;  if  these  gentle- 
men want  to  try  out  another  issue  that  is  their  busi- 
ness, not  mine,  and  I  will  endeavor  to  remain  quiet  while 
they  do  it." 

2355-6  ' '  The  Witness.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  still  under  oath, 
and  I  am  not  here  represented  by  counsel,  either  in  the 
role  of  prosecutor  or  defendant;  I  read  the  last  para- 
graph of  their  affidavit  in  which  my  name  is  dragged  in. 
As  I  said,  I  have  no  counsel  and  I  am  not  going  to  have 
counsel.  I  want  to  say  here  that  I  have  no  objection  to 
anything  being  brought  up,  though  it  be  as  that  is,  either 
the  vaporing  of  a  crazy  man,  or  the  result  of  a  conspiracy 
of  crooks — I  don't  know  which  it  is;  I  think  that  each 
man  whose  name  is  mentioned  therein — I  did  not  read 
the  affidavit — is  just  as  much  interested  in  it  as  Mr. 
James  Keeley,  or  either  party  on  either  side." 

2357  "The  Chaikman.  The  ruling  is  that  both  documents 
will  be  admitted  and  will  be  read  by  Mr.  Whittaker. 

"Rep.  Kasseeman.  I  want  the  record  to  show  that  it  is 
my  opinion  that  neither  of  these  documents  should  be 
received  in  the  record,  even  with  the  consent  of  the  at- 
torneys on  either  side." 

"Sen.  Canaday.  I  am  of  the  same  opinion  and  join  in 
that. 

"Mr.  Mitchell.  On  behalf  of  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners I  oppose  the  introduction  of  the  statement." 


The  Marriott  Apdavit.  485 


EXHIBIT  1. 

For  a.  M.  Lawrence.  ; , 

L.  I.  B.  8/14/13. 

State  of  Illinois^        j 
County  of  Cook.         j  ^' 

.  I,  Edward  E.  Marriott,  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  County 

of  Cook,  State  of  Illinois,  being  duly  sworn,  on  oath,  state : 

That  I  was  in  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  on  August  8th,  9th,  11th, 

2358  and  12th,  1913,  and  there  had  interviews  with  John  W. 
Gray,  Thomas  H.  Pickler,  Newton  L.  Arrison,  Lloyd  L. 
Duke,  Charles  A.  Walsh,  Edwin  G.  Moon  and  others,  in 
relation  to  a  statement  made  by  said  Duke  and  given,  by 
him,  to  H.  A.  Boyer,  of  Illinois,  and  offered  in  evidence 
before  the  Butts  Legislative  Investigation  Committee,  in 
Chicago. 

Said  John  W.  Gray,  who  was  formerly  Chief  of  Police  of 
Ottumwa,  Iowa,  told  me  that  one  day  in  the  wnter  of 
1911-12,  H.  W.  Barr,  agent  for  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company  was  at  the  Ballingall  Hotel  in  Ottumwa, 
Iowa,  and  had  told  him  said  Gray,  Thomas  H.  Pickler, 
former  Mayor  of  Ottumwa,  and  Newton  L.  Arrison, 
foi'mer  City  Clerk,  the  real  facts  connected  with  said 
voting  machine  contract  in  Chicago,  purporting  to  be 
given  in  said  statement  given  by  Duke  to  Boyer. 

Gray  said  to  me, ' '  Barr  was  in  the  Ballingall  Hotel,  and 
Pickler,  Arrison  and  I  were  with  him,  trying  to  get  him 
to  pay  us  money  which  was  due  from  him  to  us  on  a  con- 

2359  tract  for  services  which  we  had  rendered  in  introducing 
Barr  to  Charles  A.  Walsh,  of  Ottumwa,  and  getting  Walsh 
to  help  the  Empire  Company  in  Chicago. 

"Barr  told  us  that  he  had  paid  big  money  to  get  the 
contract  but  that  the  big  mistake  he  had  made  was  not  to 
give  fifty  thousand  dollars  to  Jim  Keeley,  publisher  of 
the  Tribune.  Barr  said,  'Jim  Keeley  demanded  fifty  thou- 
sand dollars,  but  we  refused  to  pay  him.  If  he  had  got 
that  there  would  not  have  been  any  of  this  trouble  with 
the  voting  machine  contract.  The  Tribune  and  the  other 
papers  had  always  been  for  voting  machines  and  they 
would  never  have  thought  of  fighting  the  contract  if  the 


486  Marriott  Affidavit — Continued. 

Tribune  had  not  started  trouble  when  we  refused  Keeley's 
demand  for  fifty  thousand  dollars.' 

"Charles  S.  Deneen  and  other  big  politicians  are  try- 
ing hard  to  get  Pickler,  Arrison  and  me  to  testify,  so  as 
to  hurt  Lawrence,  politically,  in  Chicago.  When  Gov- 
ernor Deneen  came  here  last  Sunday  night,  Newt  Arrison 
and  I  got  word  from  him  to  be  at  the  depot  and  we  got 
there  before  the  11 :20  train  from  Omaha  got  in.  Deneen 
had  been  to  Omaha  and  had  seen  Pickler,  but  he  could 
not  get  Pickler  to  testify  in  the  way  he  wanted  so  he  wired 
us  to  meet  him.  Deneen  tried  every  way  to  get  me  and 
Arrison  to  testify  against  A.  M.  Lawrence.  He  tried  to 
get  us  to  back  up  the  statements  made  in  the  paper  given 
by  Duke  to  Boyer.  Deneen  said  he  understood  we  claimed 
2360  a  thousand  dollars  from  Barr,  but  he  offered  to  assume 
the  thousand  dollar  contract  made  by  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company,  and  pay  us  that  thousand  dollars  and 
another  thousand  dollars,  too,  as  well  as  all  our  expenses. 
He  told  us,  'If  you  fellows  will  tell  the  whole  story  like  it 
is  in  that  Duke  statement  we  shall  have  enough  to  drive 
Andy  Lawrence  out  of  Chicago.' 

' '  Deneen  and  Butts  put  a  thousand  dollars  in  a  National 
bank  for  us,  to  induce  us  to  do  what  he  asked. 

"My  name  is  mentioned  in  the  papers  as  being  one  of 
those  referred  to  by  Duke  in  the  statement  he  gave  to 
Boyer,  but  I  tell  you  that  I  never  went  to  Chicago  on  the 
voting  machine  contract  and  never  saw  Andrew  M.  Law- 
rence in  my  life.  Lloyd  L.  Duke's  statement  is  full  of 
lies.  He  is  a  crooked  lawyer  and  has  betrayed  the  inter- 
ests of  Arrison,  Pickler  and  myself,  who  were  his  clients. 
He  ought  to  be  disbarred  and  we  will  try  to  have  him  dis- 
barred. He  gave  out  this  lying  statement  after  he  knew 
our  legitimate  business  claim  against  Barr  had  been 
settled." 

In  interviews  which  I  had  with  said  Newton  L.  Arrison 
at  the  Hotel  Ballingall  and  the  Hotel  Laclede  and  else- 
where in  Ottumwa,  said  Arrison  said  to  me : 

"I  was  the  one  of  us  three  who  went  to  Chicago  in 
January,  1911,  to  see  Charley  Walsh  and  get  him  to  help 
H.  W.  Barr  on  the  voting  machine  contract,  but  it 's  a  big 
lie  for  Duke  to  say,  or  imply,  in  his  statement  given  to 
Boyer,  that  I  know  anything  about  Andrew  M.  Lawrence 
getting  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  or  any  other  amount. 
I  never  saw  Andrew  M.  Lawrence  in  Chicago,  in  1911, 
when  I  went  there  to  introduce  Barr  to  Walsh,  and  I 


Marriott  Ajjidavit — Continued.  487 

never  spoke  to  A.  M.  Lawrence  about  the  voting  machine 
matter.  I  have  not  seen  him  at  all  for  more  than  three 
years. 

"I  hate  Andy  Lawrence  worse  than  poison  and  would 
like  to  send  him  to  hell  if  I  could  do  it  without  harming 
my  friend  Barr. 

"  If  it  wasn  't  for  my  friendship  for  Barr  and  my  love  of 
fair  play,  I  could  hardly  resist  the  offers  of  big  money 
that  are  made  by  Deneen  and  others  to  any  of  us  fellows 
who  will  go  to  Chicago  and  back  up  the  things  put  forth 
in  that  paper  that  Duke  gave  to  Boyer. 

' '  Big  money  is  being  offered  us  and  all  sorts  of  induce- 
ments. If  you  knew  of  the  work  done  here  in  Ottumwa 
this  last  week,  by  George  E.  Brennan,  of  the  Roger  Sul- 
livan crowd,  to  get  us  to  go  against  Lawrence,  you  would 
go  up  in  the  air. 

"No  one  should  believe  Duke's  statement.  He  has 
shown  himself  in  his  true  colors  by  giving  out  an  unsigned, 
unsworn  statement,  telling  about  our  claim,  after  it  has 
been  settled,  though  he  was  too  cowardly  to  put  our  names 
2361  in  the  statement.  If  there  is  any  way  of  getting  him 
disbarred,  we  will  do  it.    He  ought  to  be  disbarred. 

I  had  several  interviews  with  former  Judge  Edwin 
G.  Moon,  counsel  for  H.  W.  Barr  of  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company,  and  member  of  the  law  firm  of  Gil- 
more  &  Moon.  These  interviews  were  had  in  Gilmore  & 
Moon's  offices,  on  Main  Street,  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  on  August 
9th  and  11th.    Moon  said  to  me : 

' '  Newton  L.  Arrison  and  J.  W.  Gray  have  each  and  sev- 
erally told  me  the  same  story,  to  the  effect  that  H.  W. 
Barr,  agent  for  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company, 
told  them  in  his  room,  at  the  Hotel  Ballingall,  Ottumwa, 
one  night  in  the  winter  of  1911-12,  that  it  would  cost  him 
a  big  sum  to  get  the  Chicago  voting  machine  contract  for 
the  Empire  Company. 

*'H.  W.  Barr  had  told  the  same  story  to  me  and  to 
my  law  partner,  Merrill  C.  Gillmore,  in  our  office  in  Ot- 
tumwa. Barr  said  to  us,  *  The  mistake  we  made  was  when 
we  refused  to  give  Jim  Keeley,  of  the  Tribune,  the  fifty 
thousand  he  asked  and  then  we  would  not  have  had  this 
fight  against  the  Empire  voting  machine  contract  in  Chi- 
cago. '  I  have  a  thousand  dollars  in  my  possession,  given 
me  by  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  to  be  turned 
over  to  Pickler,  Arrison  and  Gray,  in  payment  for  their 


488  Marriott  Affidavit — Continued. 

2362  services  to  Barr.  Their  claim  against  Barr  is  all  set- 
tled, and  Lloyd  L.  Duke's  statement  is  all  wrong. 

"Charles  S.  Deneen  was  in  Ottumwa  last  Sunday 
night  making  strenuous  efforts  to  get  Arrison  and  Gray  to 

2363  go  to  Chicago  and  back  up  statements  made  by  Duke  in 
regard  to  Lawrence  and  Barr  in  the  voting  machine  con- 
tract. Deneen  told  Arrison  and  Gray  that  if  they  would 
testify  in  Chicago  he,  Deneen,  would  assume  the  one  thou- 
sand dollar  payment,  promised  by  the  Empire  Company, 
and  pay  them  lots  of  money  besides.  Deneen,  Butts  and 
the  other  politicians  have  fifteen  thousand  dollars  to  spend 
to  get  the  testimony  and  a  few  thousands  more.  He  also 
told  them  that,  if  they  would  back  up  Duke's  statement  it 
would  be  all  he  needed  to  drive  A.  M.  Lawrence  out  of 
Chicago. ' ' 

Charles  A.  Walsh,  of  Ottumwa,  whose  name  is  men- 
tioned in  the  statement,  given  by  Duke  to  Boyer,  said  to 
me: 

"In  December,  1910,  I  promised  Arrison,  Gray  and 
Pickler  that  I  would  help  them  to  get  H.  W.  Barr  intro- 
duced at  the  Chicago  Election  Commissioners'  office, 
where  he  wished  to  apply  for  a  voting  machine  contract. 
Arrison  came  from  Ottumwa  to  Chicago,  in  January, 
1911,  and  took  me  to  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel  where  I  met 
Barr.  Afterwards  I  introduced  Barr  to  Chief  Clerk  Stu- 
art of  the  election  board.  Barr  wanted  me  to  introduce 
him  to  Andrew  M.  Lawrence  and  I  asked  Mr.  Lawrence  if 
he  would  meet  Barr.  Mr.  Lawrence  asked  me,  "Who  is 
Barr."  I  answered  that  he  was  a  representative  of  one 
of  the  companies  that  manufacture  voting  machines  and 
w^as  seeking  to  place  an  order  in  Chicago.  Mr.  Lawrence 
replied  that  he  would  not  see  any  of  the  voting  machine 

2364  men  or  have  anything  to  do  with  them.  On  two  or  three 
subsequent  occasions,  when  Barr  later  asked  me  to  ap- 
proach A.  M.  Lawrence  and  arrange  for  an  interview,  Mr. 
Lawrence  again  positively  and  emphatically  refused  to 
meet  Barr.  Barr  and  Lawrence  were  never  together  in 
my  presence  at  any  time,  and  to  my  knowledge,  Barr 
never  met  Lawrence. 

"This  statement,  given  by  Duke  to  Boyer  is  part  of 
a  political  plot  and  is  full  of  lies.  If  any  money  was  paid 
by  the  Empire  Company  it  was  not  to  Lawrence.  Barr 
told  me  that  Anthony  Czarnecki  sent  several  messengers 
to  him,  Barr,  at  different  times,  saying  that,  if  Czarnecki 


The  Duke  Statement.  489 

were  taken  care  of  in  a  money  way,  the  fight  against  the 
Empire  Company  would  be  ended." 

(Signed)    Edward  E.  Marhiott. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  13th  day  of 
August,  1913. 

(Signed)     E.  J.  Bangs, 
(notarial  seal)  Notary  Public. 

My  commission  expires  January  18,  1914. 

The  so-called  Duke  statement  was  then  read  as  follows : 

2364  "We  have  lived  in  Ottumwa  for  thirty-five  years,  fifty 

2365  years,  and  fifty-five  years,  respectively. 

"That  we  first  became  acquainted  with  H.  W.  Barr  of 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  about  four  or  five 
years  ago.  That  after  this  time  an  attempt  was  made 
to  sell  Wapello  County  voting  machines  and  the  deal 
would  have  been  made  had  it  not  been  for  a  protest 
on  the  part  of  the  citizens  of  this  city  going  in  a  delega- 
iton  to  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  Wapello  County. 

"About  two  years  ago  H.  W.  Barr  of  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company  stated  that  he  believed  that  he 
could  sell  his  voting  machines  to  the  City  of  Chicago,  pro- 
vided he  could  secure  influence  with  the  Hearst-Harrison 
people  and  especially  if  he  could  secure  the  influence  of 
Andy  Lawrence.  He  said  he  was  satisfied  that  unless  he 
could  get  in  contact  with  and  acquainted  with  Lawrence 
and  the  Hearst  people  he  could  not  make  the  deal.  We 
informed  him  that  we  believed  we  knew  how  he  could  get 
acquainted,  the  deal  might  be  accomplished  through 
Charles  Walsh,  who  at  that  time  was  connected  with  the 
Hearst  people.  Barr  stated  that  in  the  event  he  was  able 
to  make  a  contract  he  would  pay  us  fifteen  hundred  dol- 
lars. 

"In  January  we  selected  one  of  our  number  and  we  and 
Barr  agreed  that  it  would  perhaps  be  best  for  only  one  of 
us  to  go  to  Chicago. 

2366  "After  the  consultation  with  us  in  Ottumwa,  H.  W. 
Barr  wired  me  from  Chicago  to  come  to  Chicago  the  next 
day.  I  think  it  was  on  January  seventh,  on  Tuesday  or 
Wednesday,  I  went  to  Chicago.  Barr  met  me  at  the  Union 
Station  and  we  went  to  the  Examiner  office  and  I  walked 
into  the  Examiner  office  while  Barr  went  to  the  Grand 
Pacific  Hotel.  I  went  into  the  Examiner  office  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  Charles  Walsh  and  after  a  short  time 
Walsh  and  I  went  to  the  Grrand  Pacific  Hotel.    I  then  in- 


490  Duke  Statement — Continued. 

troduced  H.  W.  Barr  to  Walsh.  We  stayed  there  all  after- 
noon talking  about  the  best  method  to  proceed  to  get  the 
machine  placed  in  the  City  of  Chicago.  Walsh  said  he 
would  get  Barr  in  connection  with  Andy  Lawrence  and 
other  prominent  men  in  the  Hearst  aggregation.  Walsh 
took  us  to  the  Election  Commissioners'  office  and  intro- 
duced us. 

' '  Before  leaving  Chicago  I  asked  Barr  if  I  had  accom- 
plished what  he  expected  of  me.  Barr  said  yes,  I  had 
delivered  the  goods  and  done  more  than  he  had  expected 
and  that  he  was  satisfied. 

' '  It  was  in  the  following  fall  sometime,  that  Barr  came 
to  Ottumwa  to  try  to  reopen  the  matter  concerning  the 
sale  of  machines  to  Wapello  County. 

' '  He  said  he  would  now  tell  us  about  how  he  managed 
to  get  the  contract  for  the  sale  of  the  machines  in  Chi- 
cago. He  said  it  had  cost  him  a  great  deal  more  money 
2367  than  he  had  expected.  He  and  Walsh  had  a  number  of 
meetings  every  day  for  several  days  and  which  finally 
resulted  in  a  meeting  with  Andy  Lawrence.  Barr  then 
set  forth  his  proposition  with  regard  to  the  sale  of  the 
machines. 

"For  some  time,  Barr  stated,  they  could  not  get  to- 
gether or  come  to  an  understanding  with  Lawrence.  Final- 
ly, Barr  said,  we  made  out  a  list  of  expenditures  neces- 
sary in  order  to  make  the  deal  and  placed  it  before  Law- 
rence. It  was  a  list  of  the  amounts  that  would  have  to  be 
paid  to  different  parties  for  their  influence  to  consummate 
the  deal.  Walsh  was  on  the  list  for  fourteen  thousand 
dollars,  and  Lawrence  for  eighty-five  thousand  dollars,  as 
I  remember  the  amounts.  The  list  was  then  revised  by 
Lawrence.  He  came  to  Walsh's  name  and  the  fourteen 
thousand  dollars  and  stated  to  Walsh  that  he  wanted  to 
know  why  Walsh  was  to  have  that  amount  of  money,  that 
Walsh  could  not  deliver  anything.  Walsh  then  said,  'put 
the  fourteen  thousand  over  in  the  Lawrence  column.' 
When  the  list  was  finally  completed  Lawrence  was  to  have 
one  hundred  and  five  thousand  dollars.  Barr  said  the 
deal  had  cost  him  something  like  two  hundred  thousand 
dollars  to  place  the  machine  in  Chicago.  Barr  said  he  had 
already  drawn  out  about  one  hundred  and  eighty  thou- 
sand dollars  from  Chicago  and  that  he  had  paid  out  more 
than  that.  He  said  he  also  had  to  fix  up  some  matters 
with  the  Gray  Wolves  in  order  to  keep  them  quiet.  He 
said  he  was  going  to  ask  his  company  to  make  a  further 


Testimony  of  A.  Czamecki.  491 

2368  appropriation  of  ten  thousand  dollars  to  take  care  of 
some  additional  claims. 

"Further  facts  will  be  given  later  and  each  of  the  de- 
tails with  reference  to  exact  dates  and  corroborating  cir- 
cumstances will  also  be  given." 


Volume  XXIII. 


Morning  Session. 
August  15.  1913. 


'■o'- 


Anthony  Czarnecki  resumes  the  stand: 

2372  A  protest  by  Mr.  Winslow  and  one  by  Mr.  Hall  of  the 
International  Voting  Machine  Company  were  received  by 
the  Election  Commissioners. 

Witness  cannot  remember  whether  Mr.  Farrell,  as  well 
as  Mr.  Winslow  and  Mr.  Hall,  complained  that  their  pack- 
ages of  blueprints  and  so  forth  had  not  been  opened. 

2373  Dr.  Taylor  made  a  statement  after  receipt  of  the  com- 
plaint of  Mr.  Winslow  that  the  "experts  as  well  as  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners"  had  done  everything 
to  satisfy  themselves  as  to  the  proper  thing  to  be  done. 

Mr.  Kellermann  and  a  man  in  his  employ  were  present 
during  the  examination  of  the  experts,  and  Dr.  Taylor 
part  of  the  time. 

Witness  does  not  know  of  any  other  investigations  made 
by  the  commissioners.  The  board  officially  never  met  to 
hear  complaints. 

2374  Mr.  Farrell  complained  that  the  experts  spent  two 
hours  and  twenty  minutes  on  the  first  examination  of  his 
machine,  of  which  a  great  part  was  spent  in  discussing 
the  general  requirements  of  voting  machines  and  that  the 
second  examination  of  his  machine  was  trivial. 

2375  Mr.  Farrell  also  stated  that  the  experts  reported  that 
the  Empire  machine  complied  with  the  Illinois  state  law, 
but  that  it  could  not  be  voted  in  the  time  required  by  the 
state  law,  and  so  forth. 

2376  These  protests  and  all  other  protests  in  writing  were 
presented  and  placed  on  file. 

The  International  protest  complained  that  the  board 
had  acted  on  the  report  of  the  experts  without  giving  the 
company  a  chance  to  be  heard  and  that  the  public  hearing 
provided  for  had  never  been  held. 


492        Witness  Moves  to  Rescind  Taylor  Resolution. 

The  written  protest  of  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine 
Company  was  submitted  July  13th  and  was  read  by  the 
board. 

2377  The  witness  made  a  motion  to  rescind  the  action  of  the 
board  in  adopting  Commissioner  Taylor's  resolution  to 
notify  the  Empire  Company  that  its  machine  is  preferred 
and  that  the  Board  is  ready  to  enter  into  a  contract. 

This  motion  was  made  in  view  of  the  protest  which  had 
been  filed.    It  received  no  second. 

2378  Witness  made  a  motion  to  rescind  the  action  of  the 
board  and  reopen  the  whole  proposition  of  voting  ma- 
chines.    This  motion  received  no  second. 

Dr.  Taylor  renewed  his  motion  to  place  the  written  pro- 
tests on  file. 

Witness  moved  to  fix  a  time  limit  at  October  3,  1911, 
for  the  production  of  the  sample  machine.  Dr.  Taylor 
seconded  this  motion,  which  was  unanimously  carried. 

Witness  then  moved  that  failure  to  deliver  the  sample 
machine  as  provided  should  end  negotiations  with  the 
Empire  Company  and  open  a  new  deal  for  voting  ma- 
chines.   This  motion  was  not  seconded. 

Witness  moved  that  the  tests  upon  the  sample  machine 
be  deemed  the  binding  test  and  will  determine  whether 
any  Empire  voting  machines  are  to  be  purchased. 
2380  Witness  moved  that  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany be  required  to  deposit  $25,000  to  guarantee  the  pro- 
duction of  a  sample  machine  to  be  forfeited  to  the  City 
Treasury  as  damages  and  so  forth,  and  to  be  returned 
to  the  Empire  Company  upon  the  production  of  sample 
machine  within  the  specified  time.  This  motion  received 
no  second. 

2384  July  21st  a  communication  was  received  by  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  from  James  C.  Garrett  of  San 
Francisco,  who  claimed  to  be  in  litigation  over  patents 
with  the  Empire  Company. 

Witness  moved  to  have  the  communication  referred  to 
the  attorney  for  the  board. 

Dr.  Taylor  moved  that  it  be  placed  on  file. 

It  was  placed  on  file. 

The  second  report  of  the  experts  appointed  by  Judge 
Owens  was  made  at  the  meeting  of  July  21,  1911. 

2385  It  related  to  a  9-party,  70-key  machine.  This  was  the 
sample  machine  which,  under  the  motion  of  Commissioner 
Czarnecki,  was  to  be  produced  by  October  3,  1911. 

This  machine,  a  large  machine  of  that  type  (indicating 


The  Number  of  Empire  Machine  Examined.         493 

the  Empire  machine  present  in  the  room)  had  on  its  front 
a  plate  "Made  at  Rochester,"  and  the  machine  was  photo- 
graphed by  somebody. 

2386  Witness  does  not  remember  the  serial  number,  but 
"some  ladies  came  in  there  for  somebody  and  made  a 
record  of  that  and  called  me  out  of  the  room  and  asked 
me  to  look  at  the  back  of  the  machine." 

Witness  is  handed  photographs  and  asked  if  he  can 
identify  them. 

"A.  'Manufactured  by  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company,  Jamestown,  N.  Y. ' ;  that  is  about  what  the  plate 
was,  it  was  taken  by  a  young  man. ' ' 

"That  was  a  part  of  the  board  room  (indicating)  where 
the  machine  stood;  that  is  about  what  that  plate  was 
there. "  Witness  refers  to  exhibit  marked  State's  Exhibit 
1  of  August  15,  C.  S.  D. 

2387  On  the  sample  machine  the  witness  pointed  out  the 
smallness  of  the  slot  for  independent  voting  and  asked  the 
expert  Chamberlain  to  write  in  the  names  of  "  a  sufficient 
number  of  presidential  electors. ' '  When  he  got  through 
it  would  require  a  magnifying  glass  to  read  them.  Next 
day  the  report  of  the  experts  recommended  that  "ample 
opening  for  independent  voting  be  provided." 

2388  The  serial  number  of  the  machine  was  taken  by  stenog- 
raphers who  were  called  in  by  the  man  who  made  the 
photographs,  whose  name  was  Keppler.  Witness  does 
not  know  whether  the  machine  was  an  old  machine  or  a 
new  one ;  he  had  never  seen  a  9-party,  70-key  Empire  ma- 
chine before. 

2389  Witness  knows  beyond  question  that  the  plate  on  the 
machine  said  "Rochester."  It  was  commented  on  after- 
wards in  the  newspapers. 

Pages  2389  to  2392  contains  a  statement  by  Mr.  De- 
neen  contending  that  an  old  9-party,  70-key  machine  which 
had  been  examined  and  discarded  by  the  old  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  was  presented  by  the  Empire 
Company  as  the  sample  machine  required  under  the  con- 
tract and  examined  by  Judge  Owens'  experts  and  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Judge  Owens'  experts  failed 
to  identify  the  machine  they  examined,  either  by  name- 
plate  or  serial  number. 
2392  Witness  moves  that  since  the  experts'  report  on  the 
9-party,  70-key  Empire  machine  pointed  out  certain  de- 
fects in  the  machine,  that  no  further  steps  be  taken  by 
the  Election  Commissioners  "until  the  device  which  the 


494  Adoption  of  Taylor  Resolution. 

Empire  Company  proposes  to  furnish  is  actually  sub- 
mitted to  the  board."    This  motion  received  no  second. 

2393  Dr.  Taylor  stated  that  after  conferring  with  the  ex- 
perts he  is  satisfied  that  the  two  defects  pointed  out  in 
their  report  are  immaterial  in  their  nature  and  can  be 
easily  remedied. 

2394  Thereupon  Dr.  Taylor  moved  the  adoption  of  his  own 
resolution  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  machines  at 

.       the  price  of  $942,500. 

Attorney  Mitchell  furnished  copies  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine contract  to  the  Election  Commissioners  and  read  it. 

2395  The  differences  between  the  contract  and  the  specifica- 
tions were  not  pointed  out  at  this  time  because,  so  far  as 
witness  was  concerned,  the  contract  was  brought  in  so 
unexpectedly  "I  had  no  notice  that  it  was  to  be  taken  up 
that  day." 

2396  ' '  This  was  the  first  time  the  contract  was  produced  be- 
fore the  board,  and  witness'  moved  for  time  to  study  it. 
His  motion  received  no  second. 

2397  The  Taylor  resolution  for  the  purchase  of  voting  ma- 
chines is  passed  by  the  votes  of  Taylor  and  Kellermann, 
witness  Czamecki  voting  "nay." 

2399  Witness  made  a  motion  summing  up  the  various  objec- 
tions to  the  voting  machine  and'  the  lack  of  time  on  tlie 
part  of  the  commissioners  to  consider  the  machine  or  the 
contract;  that  120  machines  should  be  bought  as  an  ex- 
periment before  entering  into  a  contract  for  1,000 ;  noth- 
ing was  done  upon  this  motion. 

2400  At  a  meeting  of  November  16th  the  question  of  serving 
notice  upon  the  city  came  up.  Witness  voted  against  send- 
ing such  notice. 

2401  Witness  explains  the  attaching  of  his  signature  to  the 
specifications.  He  did  it  under  protest,  not  as  approving 
the  specifications,  but  to  conform  to  the  old  board's  speci- 
fications which  has  the  signature  .of  the  secretary  of  the 
board  attached. 

2402  "I  voted  against  every  payment,  not  only  of  the  ma- 
chines, but  for  the  costs  incidental  to  the  storage  and 
cartage." 

"Rep.  Jayne.  Q.  Mr.  Czarnecki,  will  you  tell  us,  when 
these  specifications  were  made,  were  you  a  party,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  board,  when  the  specifications  were  made,  did 
you  help  make  the  specifications. 

"A.  I  did,  yes,  sir;  that  is,  the  first  draft  was  brought 
in  one  day  and  then  one  day  intervened,  and  the  third  day 


No  Opportunity  to  Study  Contract.  495 

they  were  brought  in,  for  final  adjustment,  I  brought  in  a 
lot  of  final  suggestions. 

"Q.  You—did  you  assist  in  making  the  contract?  A. 
2403  No,  sir,  I  didn't  know  that  there  was  a  contract  in  ex- 
istence or  that  it  would  be  sprung  at  the  board  meeting, 
until  it  was  over,  until  it  was  there. 

"Q.  Were  you  consulted  about  the  contract?  A.  No,, 
sir,  not  whatever. 

"Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  board  meeting  the  day 
the  contract  was  awarded?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  On  June  30th?  A.  You  mean  when  the  resolu- 
tion of  Dr.  Taylor  was  adopted? 

"Q.  The  day  the  board  decided  to  adopt  the  Empire 
voting  machine,  were  you  present?    A.     Yes. 

' '  Q.  How  long  before  that  had  your  board  decided  to 
give  the  contract  to  the  Empire  Machine  Company,  had 
the  board  talked  it  over  before  June  30th?  A.  No,  T  had 
no  notice  that  they  were  to  give  it  to  the  Empire? 

*'Q.  But  on  the  day  the  contract  was  given?  A.  What- 
ever notice  I  had  was  in  the  board  meetings. 

"Q.  The  day  it  was  awarded,  was  that  when  they  de- 
cided? A.  The  first  I  knew  of  the  contract  was  when 
Mr.  Mitchell  read  it  in  the  board  meeting,  it  was  the  meet- 
ing at  which  it  was  approved  and  adopted  by  a  majority 


\ 

I 
r. 
f  vote 


2404  "Q.  You  objected  at  that  time,  did  you?  A.  Yes, 
sir,  I  asked  for  time  to  read  it  and  offer  amendments." 

2405  It  was  necessary  to  have  two  machines  in  each  precinct 
to  meet  the  conditions  in  each  precinct.  There  were  350 
to  400  voters  allotted  to  each  precinct  at  that  time. 

The  precincts  had  not  then  been  redistricted  with  a 
view  to  voting  machines.  350  included  male  and  female 
voters. 
2407  "Rep.  Jayne.  Was  it  (the  award  to  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company)  discussed  with  you  in  the  board 
meeting? 

"A.  Not  before  it  was  sprung;  the  first  intimation  I 
had  of  that  was  when  the  resolution  was  sprung.  In  view 
of  the  passage  of  my  resolution  for  giving  the  Empire 
people  time  to  October,  and  in  view  of  the  second  report 
of  the  experts  suggesting  certain  things  for  what  was  to 
be  the  sample  machine,  I  was  surprised  that  immediately 
thereafter  in  that  same  meeting  the  proposition  of  the  con- 
tract was  presented." 

Witness  had  no  advance  information  that  the  experts 


496  Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki. 

would  report  on  July  21st  when  the  report  was  brought  in 
by  Mr.  Stuart;  but  knew  that  Messrs.  Chamberlain  and 
Wooley  were  examining  the  machines  the  day  before. 

The  storage  charges  on  voting  machines  at  the  ware- 
house are  $300  per  month  with  additional  charges  for 
space  to  handle  machines  in  case  of  a  recount  which  also 
costs  about  $300  per  month. 

2408  Witness  does  not  know  the  exact  number  of  men  em- 
ployed at  the  warehouse.  "It  is  quite  a  crew  of  men  for 
assemblers  and  various  other  duties  there." 

Mr.  McEwen  produces  a  paper  said  to  be  a  list  of  em- 
ployes at  the  Pugh  Storage  Warehouse. 

2409  The  list  does  not  give  the  salaries  of  employes,  but  wit- 
ness states  they  average  $4  per  day. 

2410  "The  Witness  (reading).  'I  hand  you  herewith  report 
showing  men  assigned  to  work  on  voting  machines  from 
October  21  to  November  16,  1912,  inclusive,  setting  forth 
the  work  performed  by  each  man.  I  transmit  also  a  mem- 
orandum of  the  report  of  police  officers  detailed  to  guard 
machines  at  warehouse  while  being  transferred  from  poll- 
ing places  to  the  warehouse. ' 

"November  5th — I  will  read  the  October  first,  this  is 
disarranged. 

"W.  H.  Clark,  demonstrating,  putting  on  ballots, 
proof-reading  same. 

"Hert — I  think  his  first  name  is  Rudolph,  demonstrat- 
ing, packing,  packing  lanterns. 

"T.  D.  Burke,  demonstrating,  examiner. 

"Rep.  Kasserman.  Were  these  men  employed  during 
this  entire  time? 

"A.  This  is  October  21,  22,  23,  24,  25,  26,  27,  28,  29,  30 
and  31 ;  November  1,  2,  3  and  4. 

"Rep.  Jayne.    How  many  days  is  that ? 

"The  Witness.  Each  one-  has  the  number  of  days 
stated;  Clark,  for  instance,  has  ten  days. 

"Rep.  Jayne.  Call  off  the  number  of  days;  start  from 
the  beginning. 

"The  Witness.  William  H.  Clark,  ten  days.  Rudolph 
Hert,  111/2  days;  he  is  demonstrating,  trucking,  packing 
and  packing  lanterns. 

"T.  D.  Burke,  demonstrating,  examiner,  13  days. 

"Charles  Kuhn,  paper  rolls,  assembler,  examiner  14 V^ 
days. 

"Frank  Conboy;  assembler,  examiner;  4  days. 


Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki.  497 

2420  "A.  That  is  a  complete  list  as  furnished  bv  Mr. 
Hoff." 

Witness  thinks  the  night  and  day  watch  is  maintained 
at  the  warehouse,  three  shifts. 

Mr.  Sapp,  Mr.  Sullivan  and  Mr.  Hoff  worked  together  a 
good  deal  on  the  ballots  and  preparation  of  the  face  of  the 
machine  and  with  the  men  at  the  warehouse. 

During  the  recounts  of  ballots,  the  entire  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  went  to  the  warehouse  every  day. 
Witness  has  not  been  there  lately.  There  are  about  500 
of  the  machines  at  the  warehouse. 

2421  The  contract  calls  for  1,000  and  witness  has  been  look- 
ing for  further  storage  rooms  in  different  parts  of  the 
city  so  as  to  save  the  long  haul  of  the  machines  at  election 
time. 

Mr.  Stuart  assigns  the  men  to  the  warehouse. 

2422  Witness  thinks  handling  machines  costs  about  $5  per 
round  trip  per  machine ;  some  of  the  warehouse  men  went 
along  with  the  carriers. 

2423  It  was  the  custom  under  the  old  board  to  appoint  cus- 
todians of  the  warehouse  upon  the  recommendation  of 
ward  leaders.    Witness  was  not  so  recommended. 

2424  Ward  leaders'  recommendations  is  the  system  used  in 
the  appointment  of  judges  and  clerks  of  election  This  is 
not  followed  exclusively.  "A  Republican  comes  in  and 
files  an  application  and  we  give  him  a  chance  to  get  in." 

As  a  rule  the  men  employed  at  the  warehouse  are  ac- 
tive in  the  various  factions  of  politics,  who  have  had  ex- 
perience in  politics. 

2425  Mr.  Stuart  assigns  the  men  to  the  warehouse  and  they 
are  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Hoff. 

Witness  had  nothing  to  do  with  these  appointments, 
nor,  so  far  as  he  knows,  did  either  of  the  other  commis- 
sioners. Mr.  Stuart  had  charge  and  could  change  the  as- 
signments of  men  to  the  warehouse. 

The  only  check  the  commissioners  had  upon  the  work 
of  Mr.  Hoff  and  the  warehouse  men  in  setting  the  ma- 
chines, preparing  the  paper  ballots,  and  so  forth,  was  the 
record  kept  by  Mr.  Hoff. 

2426  Mr.  Stuart  went  to  the  warehouse  but  spent  most  of 
his  time  at  the  Election  Commissioners '  office. 

Mr.  Chamberlain,  the  expert,  gave  instructions  to  the 
men  of  the  warehouse  and  Mr.  Hoff  was  supposed  to  con- 
duct a  school  there. 

2427  The  number  of  employes   employed   by   the   Election 


498  Witness'  Objections  to  Empire  Machines. 

Commissioners  has  not  diminished  since  the  purchase  of 
voting  machines ;  about  40  extra  men  are  at  present  em- 
ployed. 

Witness  does  not  know  how  Professor  Chamberlain  was 
employed.    Mr.  Stuart  made  the  arrangement. 

2428  Witness  does  not  know  what  Mr.  Chamberlain  Avas  do- 
ing when  visiting  the  polling  places  election  day,  or  the 
purpose  of  it.    Witness  was  not  consulted. 

Witness  never  heard  representatives  of  the  different 
parties  were  present  when  the  voting  machines  were  pre- 
pard  for  elections  at  the  warehouse  or  when  they  were 
returned  there. 

Representatives  of  some  candidates  have  been  invited 
to  the  Commission  to  watch  the  printing  of  ballots  in  the 
printing  shop. 

2429  The  witness  thinks  that  men  are  employed  preparing 
machines  for  about  ten  days  prior  to  an  election.  Witness 
does  not  know  whether  the  men  worked  at  night  or  not, 
or  who  had  access  to  the  keys  to  the  Pugh  warehouse.  Wit- 
ness did  not  have. 

2430  Judge  Owens  selected  the  chief  clerk  and  the  board  ap- 
pointed him  at  the  Judge's  request. 

At  the  time  of  the  voting  machine  contract  witness  was 
in  favor  of  a  voting  machine  that  would  meet  h'.s  judg- 
ment. 

2431  A  machine  to  meet  the  judgment  of  witness  would  have 
to  comply  with  the  state  law  and  meet  his  objections  to  the 
Empire  and  other  machines  which  were  submitted  and 
would  have  to  have  some  features  which  ought  to  be  on 
any  machine. 

Witness  thinks  he  would  have  voted  for  a  machine  that 
complied  in  all  respects  with  the  state  law. 

2432  The  Empire  machine  failed  to  meet  the  state  law.  It 
did  not  vote  in  a  minute.  It  did  not  give  a  record  of  the 
count  on  the  irregular  voting,  or  total  the  count. 

Witness  does  not  recollect  whether  the  law  requires  a 
machine  to  foot  up  the  grand  total,  but  thinks  the  ma- 
chine, in  having  too  small  a  slot  for  irregular  voting  failed 
to  comply  with  the  law. 
2433-6  Witness  enumerates  the  features  of  a  voting  machine 
not  found  on  the  Empire  machine,  such  as  he  would  re- 
quire before  favoring  it,  such  as  printing,  visible  voting, 
limited  inspections,  totalling  the  vote,  device  to  lock  the 
machine  against  the  judges    and   clerks,    inspection    of 


Empire  Machine  Not  Suitable  to  Chicago.  499 

counters  to  see  how  candidates  were  running,    and    so 
forth. 

2436  As  it  is  now,  the  three  judges,  or  one  of  them  with  three 
keys,  can  look  at  the  voting  machine  and  see  how  a  man 
is  running. 

2437  Tlie  Empire  machine  does  not  meet  the  election  condi- 
tions of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

"A.  Well,  it  is  a  very  heavy  machine ;  the  cartage,  the 
luggage,  and,  another  thing;  if  we  have — as  we  had  on 
April  4th — an  election,  and  on  April  11th  a  primary,  a 
canvass  of  the  votes  of  the  elections  would  take  a  few 
days  and  then  you  could  not  use  those  machines  for  a 
primary  unless — of  course,  I  am  not  a  lawyer.  It  may 
be  that  you  could  get  a  special  order  of  some  court  to 
release  the  machine,  but  the  record  would  be  destroyed 
with  reference  to  what  that  machine  shows  in  case  of  a 
contest.  Now,  if  you  had  a  printed  record,  that  printed 
record  would  remain  even  though  the  machines  were 
used  for  some — " 

2440  ' '  Sen.  Landee.  The  machine  would  not  stop  running  in 
repeaters  of  honest  voters? 

"A.  It  would  not,  it  would  not  reduce  the  work  of  the 
judges  and  clerks  on  election  day  except  on  the  count 
because  under  the  present  Australian  system  there  are 
two  private  registers  in  each  precinct,  there  are  two 
polling  books  in  each  precinct,  and  two  clerks  are  busy 
recording  the  names  of  the  voters  as  they  come  in  into 
the  polling  books,  the  two  judges  are  busy  questioning 
the  voter  as  he  comes  in,  checking  off  that  he  is  a  voter 
that  is  registered,  while  the  fifth  man  stands  at  the  bal- 
lot box  and  marks  his  name  on  the  back  of  it,  or  if  it  is  a 
machine  he  pulls  the  cord,  which  is  equivalent  to  the  work 
at  the  ballot  box. 

"The  Chairman.  Mr.  Czarnecki,  I  believe  you  were 
present  at  the  time  the  experts  for  the  committee  demon- 
strated the  possibilities  of  fraud  to  be  committed  on  this 
machine  before  it  leaves  the  warehouse? 

"A.    Yes,  sir,  I  was. 

"Q.  Now,  where  fraud  of  that  character  is  possible, 
do  you  believe  that  fraud,  where  committed  on  the  ma- 
chine, or  where  committed  after  election,  is  more  easily 
ascertained  than  where  fraud  is  committed  on  the  ballot? 

2441  A.  More  difficult  on  the  machine  at  the  present  time; 
for  example,  when  Mr.  Northup  and  the  grand  jury  had 
heard  witnesses  from  the  First  Ward  precinct  where  the 


500  Impounding  of  Voting  Machines. 

machine  is  reset  and  has  been  used  at  subsequent  elec- 
tions, and  there  is  nothing  that  we  can  come  back  and 
check  up  and  see  whether  those  voters  are  telling  the  truth 
or  not. 

"Q.    Now,  that  is  all  right.    A.    The  vote  is  gone. 

"Q.  I  want  to  ask  you  about  the  general  election  of 
1912.  You  had  500  machines  in  the  warehouse  purchased 
by  your  commission,  how  many  out  of  the  500  were  used 
at  the  general  election,  to  your  best  knowledge  f  A.  Ten 
wards. 

"Q.  How  many  machines?  A.  I  think  about  400,  and 
some,  I  am  not  positive;  I  am  not  sure  as  to  the  exact 
amount. 

"Q.  How  many  machines  were  available  in  the  elec- 
tion which  followed  four  months  or  more  after  this!  A. 
Only  those  in  three  wards  in  which  Judge  Baldwin  had 
released — 

"Q.  Excuse  me,  four  wards.  Then  those  machines 
used  in  the  1912  election  were  impounded  by  court  order 
on  account  of  the  contest  in  the  State's  Attorneyship, 
2442  and  could  not  be  used  in  the  spring  election,  is  that  the 
reason?  A.  They  are  still  impounded,  being  used  sub- 
ject to  the  inspections  of  the  grand  jury,  I  don't  know 
whether  Judge  Baldwin — 

"Q.  Can  you  state  the  number  of  machines  used  in  the 
spring  election  of  1913,  was  it  130?  A.  I  think  about 
that,  there  were  four  wards,  I  remember  that. 

"Q.  Only  four  wards?  A.  Yes,  sir,  there  was  ma- 
chines which  had  been  released  from  four  wards  by  Judge 
Baldwin. 

"Q.    Then  out  of  the  available  500  machines,  the  com- 
mission could  only  use  about  130?    A.    About  that." 
2444     In  1904  the  people  voted  in  favor  of  the  use  of  voting 
machines. 

"Q.  What  was  the  understanding  then?  That  they 
were  to  install  voting  machines  as  they  were  then  or  as 
they  were  to  be  twenty  years  hence  or  fifty  years  hence, 
or  five  years  hence  ?  Any  notion  about  that  ?  A.  It  was 
my  notion,  what  the  referendum  was,  was  this,  that  the 
state  was  willing  to  exchange  the  paper  ballot  for  a  vot- 
ing machine  of  the  right  kind,  and  that  the  kind  of  a  ma- 
chine was  to  be  left  to  the  judgment  in  the  first  place  of 
the  state  voting  machine  commission  and  then  to  the  re- 
spective bodies  in  the  different  communities  charged 
with  the  elections. "  ' 


Machines  Bought  for  Use  at  Primaries.  501 

Witness  thought  that  the  people,'  by  their  votes,  wanted 
a  machine  that  would  remove  the  greatest  amount  of 
frauds  and  errors. 

2446  Witness  does  not  remember  whether  the  comparative 
cost  of  elections  with  ballot  and  machine  was  discussed 
at  the  time  of  the  referendum. 

In  stating  that  the  voters  could  not  vote  on  the  Empire 
machine  in  one  minute,  witness  had  in  mind  a  general 
election. 

"Do  you  believe  that  the  law  contemplated  voting  at 
a  primary  election  on  a  machine?  A.  You  mean  the 
voting  machine  law? 

"Q.  Yes.  A.  Whether  the  law  contemplated  that  or 
not  I  don't  know;  I  know  when  we  bought  those  machines 
when  we  were  considering  the  machines,  we  were  con- 
sidering them  with  reference  to  the  primary  as  well  as 
the  election,  and  we  used  them  for  the  first  time  after  the 
purchasing  at  a  primary." 

2447  In  addition  to  the  city  election  of  April  4th  there  was 
a  primary  election  on  April  11th. 

2448  "Q.  Wliy  did  you  say  you  could  not  vote  at  both  of 
those  elections  with  these  machines?  A.  You  would 
have  to  canvass  the  vote  and  the  law  contained,  I  under- 
stood it  and  understand  it  now,  that  they  are  not  to  be 
released  for  30  days,  some  provision  of  that  kind  in  the 
voting  machine  law,  unless  by  some  special  court  pro- 
ceeding, of  these  voting  machines  that  contest  could  not 
be  brought  until  after  canvass  of  the  vote. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Isn't  that  the  fault  of  the  Governor 
to  call  the  special  election  so  soon  after  the  general  elec- 
tion? 

"A.  I  don't  know  whose  fault  it  was,  that  was  what  I 
had  in  mind  while  discussing  the  machine  during  that 
year,  that  was  one  of  the  reasons  that  came  up  to  me  to 
have  a  printed  record." 
2450  Witness  does  not  think  the  Empire  voting  machine 
complies  with  the  law  permitting  the  voter  to  vote  inde- 
pendently for  presidential  electors  because  the  space  fur- 
nished is  not  big  enough  to  write  in  the  names. 

At  the  time  of  the  purchase  of  the  Empire  voting  ma- 
chine, the  witness  would  not  have  favored  the  purchase  of 
any  of  the  four  machines  exhibited.  He  thought  that 
three  of  them  were  about  on  a  par  and  the  fourth  out  of 
the  question. 


502  Machines  Have  Not  Reduced  Expenses. 

2451  "Q.  Was  there  any  of  the  voting  machines  made  so 
they  would  vote  in  one  minute,  in  your  opinion?  A. 
Why,  I  think  the  party-lever  machine,  you  could  scratch 
a  ticket  quicker  than  you  could  there." 

Witness  thinks  a  party-lever  machine  could  be  used 
in  this  state  with  its  cumulative  voting  system. 

2452  And  that  the  Empire  people  said  they  could  put  a 
party-lever  on  their  machine. 

According  to  experience  so  far  witness  does  not  think 
the  use  of  voting  machines  has  reduced  the  cost  of  elec- 
tions.   "We  might  be  able  to." 

The  voting  machine  law,  voted  on  by  the  people,  pro- 
vided for  increasing  the  size  and  reducing  the  number  of 
precincts  and  thereby  the  expense  of  election. 

The  Empire  voting  machine  has  not  accomplished  these 
purposes. 

2453  The  Election  Commissioners  gave  a  bond  of  $5,000  and 
witness  believes  Chief  Clerk  Stuart  gives  a  bond  of  the 
same  amount.  Mr.  Hoff  and  the  other  employees  do  not 
give  bonds. 

On  election  day  witness  has  not  visited  polling  places 
to  see  that  the  voting  machines  are  all  right. 

Witness  thinks  that  Dr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Kellermann 
visited  some  polling  places,  but  is  not  sure. 

Nor  did  the  Election  Commissioners  open  the  machines 
after  the  election  was  over  to  see  that  the  counters  cor- 
responded with  the  returns  of  the  election. 

2454  There  was  talk  of  having  photographs  taken  of  the 
back  of  the  machine  to  be  saved  as  a  permanent  record. 
The  witness  thinks  a  photographer  attended  at  one  of  the 
recounts.  He  took  no  photographs,  but  sent  a  bill  for 
attendance. 

The  practice  is  for  Mr.  Hoff  to  make  a  report  to  Mr. 
Stuart  and  Mr.  Stuart  to  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners. 

Mr.  Stuart  appointed  Mr.  Hoff,  so  far  as  witness 
knows.  Witness  does  not  know  who  recommended  Mr. 
Hoff. 

2455  Mr.  Stuart  does  not  report  his  appointments  to  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  and  the  subject  does 
not  come  up  until  the  time  the  payroll  is  submitted. 

Witness  is  not  represented  by  counsel  at  this  hearing. 

2456  A  resolution  was  submitted  by  Dr.  Taylor  to  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  "asking  that  we  have  the 
privilege  of  being  represented  here  or  being  present. ' ' 


Testimony  of  C.  E.  DePuy.  503 

Witness  does  not  want  counsel  to  represent  him  and 
does  not  feel  that  there  is  any  grounds  for  him  to  make 
any  defense  at  this  hearing. 


Afternoon  Session. 
Friday,  August  15,  1913. 

Clarence  E.  DuPuy  is  called  to  testify  and  experiment 

2458  at  the  voting  machine: 

(Counsel  and  members  of  the  committee  go  with  wit- 
ness to  the  machine.) 

2459  "Mr.  Deneen.  Inspect  the  counters  on  the  back.  He 
wants  to  perform  on  the  front,  wants  to  see  that  the  ma- 
chine is  locked  up  right. 

"I  don't  think  that  Mr.  Hoff  should  be  back  here  back 
of  the  machine ;  he  is  an  inspector  and  should  not  be  here. 

"Rep.  Garesche.  The  counter  number  6,  C-6,  shows  a 
2 ;  counter  F-43  shows  a  3. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  There  is  a  cipher  taken  out  of  G,  and 
it  has  a  naught  underneath  it,  and  counter  15-1  has  some 
paint  on  it. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  The  objection  is  that  there  is  some 
paint  on  it? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    It  more  than  covers  the  zero. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Will  you  take  the  public  counter,  the 
count  of  it,  and  the  protective  counter? 

(The  public  counter  showed  a  registration  of  009  and 
the  protective  counter  showed  a  registration  of  003243.) 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Here  is  a  sticker  on  B-22,  which  is  in 
the  hundreds  column,  and  B-24  has  a  cipher,  it  is  not  the 
same  cipher  as  the  other  day,  it  is  a  different  form.  A-24 
is  covered  with  a  cipher,  covering  the  figure  in  the  hun- 
dreds column,  the  cipher. 

(Whereupon  the  machine  was  locked.) 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Mr.  Jayne,  will  you  do  some  voting  for 
us? 

Mr.  McEwen.  Before  you  open  that  machine  I  want  to 
show  that  some  new  sticker  of  a  different  form  was  found 
on  the  place  noted  on  the  back,  and  indicates  that  the 
sticker  covers  more  than  one  number. ' ' 

(Whereupon  Representative  Jayne  voted  for  two  can- 
didates and  the  protective  counter  registered  003372  and 
the  public  counter  138.) 


504  Experiments  on  Voting  Machine. 

(And  thereupon  Senator  Landee  went  to  the  rear  of 
the  machine  and  showed  that  it  had  not  been  locked,  door 
No.  3.) 

' '  Mr.  Deneen.  Make  a  note  that  Sen.  Landee  said  that 
the  doors  were  not  locked,  but  closed,  to  show,  however, 
that  nothing  was  done  on  the  back  of  the  machine  during 
the  vote.  Mr.  Jayne  will  continue  the  vote  on  some  other 
candidates. 

(At  the  end  of  which  vote  the  public  counter  registered 
267  and  the  protective  counter  registered  003501.) 

(Whereupon  the  back  of  the  machine  was  opened  and 
an  inspection  was  allowed  for  Judge  McEwen.) 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  24-B  shows  a  projection  that  sticks 
out  over  the  figure  1,  showing  the  figure  2  on  the  outer 
paper  underneath  on  the  steel  counter,  the  metal  counter, 
the  figure  1 ;  24-A  has  a  covering  on  it,  making  the  outside 
figures  read  028,  pulling  down  the  paper  covering  on  the 
left  figure  24-A  it  reads,  728 ;  22-B  has  a  piece  of  paper 
overlooking  the  left  figure,  showing  a  cipher;  under- 
neath that  showing  a  figure  2.  F-23  reads  228  on  the  out- 
side; there  is  a  paper  covering  on  the  left  figure  which 
when  removed  reads  two  underneath  still. 

"The  Chaieman.    Has  the  experiment  been  finished? 

"Mr.  Deneek.  Yes.  Professor  DePuy  is  now  recalled 
to  the  stand." 

Witness  DePuy  describes  experiment: 

"I  prepared  a  set  of  pasters  which  were  printed,  one 
set  of  pasters,  with  ten  figures  on,  and  the  "1"  left  out, 
so  that  as  they  were  placed  on  the  machine  the  figures 
would  read,  as  the  wheels  were  turned,  zero,  2,  3,  4,  5, 
6,  7,  8,  9 ;  that  is,  the  9  would  appear  twice  as  the  wheels 
were  turned  around.     On  the  other  set  of  figures,  the 

2460  numbers  as  they  would  appear  on  the  wheels  would  read, 
zero,  zero,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8;  the  9  being  left  out  and 
would  not  appear  in  either  case,  that  there  was  two  9's 
there,  unless  the  number  of  candidates  came  over  900  in 

2461  one  case  and  would  not  appear  at  all  in  the  other  case; 
they  would  not  be  there ;  also  these  strips  were  cut  out  the 
exact  width  of  the  opening  in  the  register  case  just  one- 
eighth  of  an  inch  wide,  they  were  spaced  also  the  same 
as  the  spacing  on  the  circumference  of  the  wheel,  so  that 
the  length  of  the  strip  was  exactly  the  same  as  the  cir- 
cumference of  the  wheel,  made  this  spacing  to  correspond 
to  the  spacing  of  the  other  figures,  these  figures  were  du- 


Experiments  Explained.  505 

plicated  from  the  figures  on  the  wheel,  and  they  were 
stuck  on  with  Dennison's  glue. 

Q.  Then  what  was  done  with  them,  and  over  what 
names  were  they  pasted?  A.  The  ones  were — the  one 
with  the  two  zeros  was  placed  on  the  counter  correspond- 
ing to  the  State's  Attorney,  Mr.  Rinaker,  24-B,  and  also 
on  the  candidate  Mr.  McCarthy,  for  the  Legislature,  li/^ 
votes  for  McCarthy,  22-B — I  should  say  that  Rinaker,  it 
should  be  24-A,  if  I  said  B,  I  am  not  sure  whether  I  did 
or  not.  On  the  counter  for  Mr.  Hoyne,  24-B,  was  placed 
one  of  the  counters  with  one  zero  and  two  nines,  on  the 
counter  for  Mr.  Snite  was  placed  another  one  with  the 
strip  with  the  two  nines,  so  that  when  one  hundred  votes 
were  cast  for  Mr.  Rinaker  it  would  appear  zero  again  for 
Mr.  Rinaker  or  Mr.  McCarthy  it  would  appear  zero 
again  on  the  counters,  and  one  hundred  votes  would  ap- 
pear to  be  cast  on  the  counters  for  Hoyne  and  Snite,  and 
one  hundred  votes  were  counted  and  two  hundred  votes 
would  appear,  what  was  lost  on  two  of  the  counters  was 
gained  on  the  other  two. 

Q.  So  Mr.  Hoyne,  in  the  experiment  you  made,  gained 
one  hundred  votes  over  the  actual  vote  cast  and  Mr. 
Rinaker  lost  one  hundred  votes  ?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  the  register  showed  one  hundred  then  for 
Rinaker  and  how  many  for  Hoyne?  A.  As  the  register 
read  after — 

Q.    After  the  experiment?    A.    Yes. 

Mr.  Deneen.    Will  you  read  the  record  on  that  ? 

(Record  read.) 

Mr.  Deneen.  Under  the  paper  ballot  what  did  you  fig- 
ure, 28  for  Mr.  Rinaker  and  228  for  Mr.  Hoyne? 

A.    I  think  that  reads  more — 

Q.  How  about  Mr.  McCarthy,  Mr.  Snite  reads  227?  A. 
Yes,  I  think  he  lost  a  vote  on  one  of  those,  one  of  the 
votes  reads  227  and  the  other  reads  228. 

Q.  I  understand,  in  the  case  of  the  Legislature,  Mr. 
McCarthy  lost  one  hundred  votes  and  Mr.  Snite  gained 
one  hundred?  A.  He  lost  one  hundred  registers,  that  is 
one  multiplied  by  II/2  times. 
2462  Q.  Well,  he  lost  one  and  one-half  times  one  hundred 
votes  and  the  other  gained  one  and  one-half  times  that 
many?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  How  did  you  do  this,  by  the  pasters  you  have  indi- 
cated?   A.    Yes. 


506  Mr.  McEwen  Discovers  Pasters. 

Q.  Were  those  discovered  by  the  committee  by  looking 
at  them  ?    A.    Not  by  looking  at  them. 

Q.  Dislodged  by  Judge  McEwen  and  others  ?  A.  Dis- 
lodged by  Judge  McEwen. 

Q.  Were  they — with  a  knife  ?  A.  With  a  point  of  a 
knife  he  discovered  them. 

Q.  What  number  did  you  discover  before  the  voting? 
A.    He  found  three  of  them. 

Q.  Which  one  did  he  not  find — over  whose  name?  A. 
The  one  for  Mr.  Snite,  23-F. 

Q.  Was  that  found  after  the  vote  had  been  taken?  A. 
Yes,  by  digging  it  with  a  knife. 

Q.    Digging  it  with  a  knife?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  When  the  vote  was  being  conducted  by  Mr.  Jayne, 
everyone  saw  who  he  was  voting  for,  just  who  it  was, 
just  the  four  men,  Mr.  Rinaker,  Mr.  Hoyne,  Mr.  McCar- 
thy and  Snite?    A.    Yes. 

Q.    And  you  were  to  look  for  deficiencies  ?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  In  your  judgment,  do  these  pasters  resemble  the 
ordinary  pasters  so  nearly  that  the  ordinary  man  would 
fail  to  see  them  in  the  early  morning?    A.    Yes." 

2465  Witness  thinks  it  would  be  possible  to  place  a  false 
ballot,  that  is  a  paper  ballot,  over  the  true  ballot  of  card- 
board on  the  face  of  the  machine,  before  the  polls  opened 
at  six  o'clock,  transposing  the  names  of  candidates,  and 
take  it  off  after  the  polls  closed  and  counting  the  true 
ballots,  thus  fraudulently  transposing  the  totals  from  one 
candidate  to  another. 

2466  This  fraud  could  be  prevented  as  a  practical  fraud 
throughout  the  city  by  the  Election  Conmiissioners  send- 
ing a  sample  ballot  to  the  judges  and  clerks  to  compare 
with  the  one  on  the  voting  machine.  It  was  witness '  idea 
that  with  collusion  it  could  be  worked  in  some  precincts. 
An  honest  watcher  with  a  sample  ballot  could  discover 
the  fraud  easily  with  collusion  between  the  judges. 

2467  "Rep.  Kassekman.  Q.  I  believe  you  stated  that  none 
of  these  pasters  were  discovered  on  the  machine  until  the 
knife  was  applied  to  them? 

"A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  Don't  you  remember  my  calling  the  attention  of 
Mr.  McEwen  to  either  one  or  two  of  them  before  he  had 
inserted  his  knife  in  the  slot?  A.  I  didn't  hear  that  re- 
mark.   If  you  did  so  it  was  unknown  to  me. ' ' 

2468  Witness  does  not  think  the  suggestion  of  photogi'aph- 


Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki.  507 

ing  the  back  of  the  machine  would  furnish  an  adequate 
check  on  frauds. 

2469  Witness  thinks  that  in  certain  precincts  judges  with 
fraudulent  intent  might  switch  the  Democratic  and  Re- 
publican party  tickets. 

2470  Witness  has  seen  Judge  McEwen  pick  a  paster  off  one 
of  the  counter  wheels  of  the  straight  party  column. 

Witness  thinks  the  paster  was  not  stuck  on  the  counter 
with  glue,  but  had  fallen  off  and  lodged  where  it  was 
found. 

Witness  does  not  think  the  pasters  were  set  on  the 
counter-wheels  perfectly. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  We  have  five  of  them,  Professor;  we 
have  taken  five  of  them  off  those  wheels." 

2471  A  party  watcher  might  discover  the  transposition  of  a 
party  ticket,  but  "in  order  to  discover  the  transposition 
of  candidates  he  would  have  to  be  familiar  with  every 
name  on  the  ballot." 


Anthony  Czarnecki  resumes  the  stand: 

Further  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2471  "Rep.  Gakesche.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness  a  ques- 
tion. 

"Q.  Mr.  Czarnecki,  in  your  testimony  this  morning, 
you  were  asked  whether  Mr.  Burns  was  employed  by  the 
Election  Board  while  he  was  a  member  of  the  Legislature 
and  I  believe  you  answered  "yes."  Now,  it  is  just  sim- 
ply for  the  sake  of  clearing  this  matter  up  that  I  want  to 
ask  you  while  he  was  in  session  in  Springfield,  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Legislature,  was  he  paid  by  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners!  A.  No,  sir,  he  was  only  paid  for 
week  ends  when  the  Legislature  was  not  in  session  and 
he  was  in  Chicago. 

"Q.  Most  probably  on  Monday  and  Saturday?  A.  And 
we  had  some  work  on  Sunday;  he  may  have  done  some 
work  then;  he  didn't  get  paid  for  any  work  when  he  was 
not  in  the  City  of  Chicago  and  actually  working  for  the 
Election  Board." 


L 


508         Newspaper  Articles  About  Voting  Machines. 

2472  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  was  a  personal  appointee  of  Judge  Owens. 

2473  Judge  Owens  never  asked  witness  to  do  anything  con- 
cerning voting  machines  against  his  independent  judg- 
ment. 

2474  While  on  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  witness 
remains  a  newspaper  man  and  keeps  up  his  newspaper 
interests  and  contributes  to  the  newspapers — the  Daily 
News — during  the  consideration  of  the  voting  machine 
subject.  Witness  tried,  in  every  way,  to  bring  the  sub- 
ject of  voting  machines  into  the  News  as  much  as  possible. 

2475  Witness  did  not  write  an  editorial  appearing  in  the 
Daily  News  June  24th,  1911,  referred  to  by  Witness  Can- 
non, concerning  the  use  of  rubber  bands  on  voting  ma- 
chines. 

Witness  thinks  George  Sykes  or  Mr.  Dennis  wrote  the 
editorial. 

Sykes  is  one  of  the  editorial  writers  of  the  News  and 
also  holds  some  position  with  the  Bureau  of  Public  EflS- 
ciency. 

2476  The  witness  wrote  or  furnished  the  information  for  an 
editorial  in  the  Daily  News  of  June  20th,  1911,  entitled, 
"Ugly  Charges  Made  by  Voting  Machine  Men." 

Witness  also  wrote  or  furnished  the  facts  for  an  article, 
"Charges  After  Vote — Rivals  of  Concerns  Favored  by 
Election  Board  Say  Gamblers  Figured  in  the  Deal — 
Board  Action  Is  Likely." 

"Q.  Now,  turn  to  page  80,  an  article  with  a  headline, 
"Election  Body  Defies — Commissioners  Ignore  Protests 
of  Voting  Device  Men  on  $942,000  Contract."  A.  Yes, 
sir,  that  refers  to  the  written  protests  by  the  Interna- 
tional Voting  Machine  Company  and  others  including  the 
entire  documents  that  were  presented." 

2477  Witness  cannot  tell  whether  he  wrote  the  Item  con- 
cerning, ' '  See  Plans  to  Rush  Machine  Deal — Sample  Vot- 
ing Device  Is  Brought  to  City  Hall  and  Examined." 

"Q.  Turning  back  to  page  76,  there  is  an  editorial  en- 
titled, 'Those  Thousand  Voting  Machines  Coarse  Work.' 
Who  wrote  that?    A.    I  did  not. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  offer  in  evidence  the  four  items  from 
the  Chicago  Daily  News  which  have  been  cited,  from 
pages  70,  76,  80,  and  91,  and  identified  by  the  witness  as 
having  been  either  written  or  inspired  by  him. ' ' 

2478  "The  Witness.     I  inspired  no  editorials.     I  simply 


Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki.  509 

wrote  articles  or  furnished  information  for  news  arti- 
cles. ' ' 

When  the  witness  furnished  objections  to  voting  ma- 
chines to  the  Daily  News  he  also  furnished  them  to  every 
other  newspaper  office,  either  by  the  reporters  or  by 
copies  which  were  furnished  to  everybody. 

"Q.  When  you  were  writing  these  articles  and  turn- 
ing them  in  to  your  paper  and  having  them  published 
while  you  were  having  debates  on  the  subject,  were  you 
seeking  to  write  news  for  the  paper  or  to  influence  public 
sentiment,  or  affect  the  votes  or  consideration  in  the 
Election  Commissioners'  office?  A.  I  was  endeavoring 
in  every  way  to  call  people 's  attention ;  and,  believing  I 
was  right,  I  did  not  at  that  time  give  any  thought  to 
whether  it  would  have  any  effect  on  my  colleagues  or  not ; 
but  I  did  want  to  present  my  side  and  just  what  took 
place  there. 

"Q.  Was  this  matter  that  you  turned  in  donated  to 
the  paper,  or  did  you  receive  space  rates  for  it?  A. 
Why,  I  had  an  arrangement  there ;  it  is  not  exactly  space ; 
I  have  been  getting  a  check  every  week.  Shortly  after  1 
went  into  the  Election  Board  I  was  asked  whether  I 
would — 

"Q.    Well,  I  don't  care  to  go  into  that. 

"The  Witness.    I  want  to  explain  this. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  I  think  he  should  be  allowed  to  ex- 
plain. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    I  am  not  claiming  anything  improper 
about  this. 
2479    "Mr.  Deneen.    Yes,  I  understand  it. 

' '  The  Witness.  I  took  it  up  with  Judge  Owens ;  I  was 
first  asked  by  somebody  whether  I  could  work  for  the 
News,  whether  I  had  some  time;  that  if  anything  came 
up  in  that  office  or  any  place  else,  whether  I  would  con- 
sider myself  on  the  staff;  and  I  took  it  up  with  Judge 
Owens,  and  he  said  he  had  no  objection,  and  from  that 
time  on  I  have  been  writing,  as  I  had  been  previously 
when  I  was  in  the  bank,  whenever  they  wanted  me  to. 

"Mr.  McEwen.  Q.  What  I  wanted  to  find  out  was 
whether  it  was  Czarnecki,  the  Election  Commissioner, 
writing  an  article,  or  whether  it  was  Czarnecki,  the  news- 
paper man. 

"A.    Newspaper  man,  of  course,  for  the  public. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  He  wants  to  know  whether  you  were 
divorced  or  not. 


510  Newspaper  Items  Read  Into  Record. 

"The  Witness.  I  was  not  divorced  from  my  position. 
There  were  other  articles  written  in  our  office ;  there  were 
defenses  of  the  voting  machine  printed  and  written  in 
our  office  by  others  in  our  office,  for  the  Hearst  papers. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    Q.    That  was  before? 

"A.  Gh,  sure,  that  whole  period,  I  think  they  sent  out 
statements  of  various  kinds.  I  don't  know  who  wrote 
them;  I  would  not  say  my  fellow  commissioners  did;  I 

2480  know  Mr.  Stuart  prepared  some  statements  regarding 
the  voting  machine. 

"Q.  Did  he  prepare  them  as  Chief  Clerk,  over  his  sig- 
nature, or  did  he  prepare  them  as  reporter  on  a  paper? 
A.  My  impression  was  from  someone,  that  Mr.  Stuart 
wrote  for  one  of  the  Hearst  papers,  editorials  and  other 
things ;  and  Dr.  Taylor  has  written  poetry  for  the  Hearst 
papers." 

2481  Witness  had  differences  of  opinion  with  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  on  matters 
which  he  considered  of  great  public  interest  prior  to  the 
consideration  of  the  voting  matter. 

2482  "Judge  McEwEN.  Q.  They  conceded  always,  the  hon- 
esty of  your  position,  and  you  always  conceded  the  hon- 
esty of  their  position? 

"A.  The  honesty  of  their  position  and  the  good  faith 
of  others. 

"Q.    Yes.    A.    I  never  questioned  it. " 

Mr.  McEwen  reads  into  the  record  the  newspaper  items 
offered  by  him. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  will  offer  and  read  in  evidence  this 
item  from  page  70,  dated  June  20th,  1911,  entitled,  'Ugly 
Charges  Made  by  Vote  Machine  Men:  Attempt  to 
Force  One  Company  Out  of  the  Chicago  Competition 
Alleged.  May  Kill  Whole  Project.  State's  Attorney 
Wayman's  Name  Declared  to  Have  Been  Used  Without 

2483  Any  Authority. 

' '  Ugly  charges  and  bitter  strife  among  voting  machine 
men  loomed  up  today  menacing  the  project  of  the  Chi- 
cago Board  of  Election  Commissioners  to  buy  1,200  vot- 
ing machines  for  use  in  this  city. 

"A  plot  to  boost  prices  of  the  machines,  an  attempt 
on  the  part  of  some  voting  device  men  to  prevent  their 
competitors  by  threats  of  grand  jury  inquiry  from  bid- 
ding for  the  sale  of  machines  to  Chicago,  a  scheme  to 
limit  the  opportunity  to  bid  and  compete  to  only  a  few 
voting  machines,  and  general  unfairness  beneficial    to 


Newspaper  Items — Continued.  511 

one  or  two  concerns  are  among  the  charges  and  counter- 
charges which  emanated  from  those  interested  today. 

"In  view  of  the  accusations  it  is  declared  to  be  highly 
probable  that  the  project  will  receive  a  setback. 

"Owens  Back  of  Project. 

2484  "County  Judge  Owens  wishes  to  install  voting  devices 
as  a  reform  in  elections,  provided  a  perfect  machine 
meeting  all  requirements  of  future  elections  can  be  found. 
The  judge,  from  the  outset,  in  announcing  that  he  as- 
sumes the  responsibility  for  the  reform  which  he  ordered 
•his  board  to  take  up,  made  it  clear  that  the  transaction 
must  be  carried  through  in  a  clean  manner,  free  from 

2484  any  tinge  of  scandal.  The  internal  strife  and  charges  of 
the  voting  machine  men  are  placing  a  cloud  upon  the 
proposed  transaction  and  those  who  know  Judge  Owens 
declare  that  he  will  not  tolerate  the  tactics  used  and  that 
he  may  deal  a  blow  which  will  make  his  position  clear  to 
all  voting  machine  firms  in  the  country. 

"Wayman's  Name  Brought  In. 

"From  State's  Attorney  Wayman,  whose  name  a  pri- 
vate detective  agency  sought  to  use  without  authority,  in 
an  effort  to  frighten  away  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine 
Company  of  Toledo,  Ohio,  came  the  first  intimation  of 
the  internal  strife  among  voting  machine  men  over  the 
Chicago  million  dollar  contract  plum. 

"  L.  R.  Winslow,  an  inventor,  and  representative  of  the 
Winslow  Voting  Machine  Company,  which  is  one  of  the 
four  bidders  for  the  Chicago  contract,  declares  that  a 
contract  between  himself  and  representatives  of  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company,  of  Jamestown,  New  York, 
at  the  Congress  Hotel,  at  which  the  purchase  of  all  the 

2485  patent  rights  and  good  will  of  the  Winslow  concern  by 
the  Empire  people  was  considered,  started  the  trouble. 
He  declared  that  while  he  took  part  in  the  conference  to 
sell  the  Winslow  machine  and  patents  to  the  competing 
bidder,  an  attack  was  made  upon  him  after  the  confer- 
ence charging  him  with  a  plot  to  boost  prices  in  the  sale 

2486  of  the  machines  to  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  of  trying  to 
force  the  sale  of  his  machine  to  the  competitor. 


512  Newspaper  Items — Continued. 

"Features  of  the  Conference. 

"It  appears  that  the  conference  which  was  held  be- 
tween the  Winslow  and  Empire  people  at  a  room  in  the 
Congress  Hotel  had  some  unusual  features.  A  short- 
hand reporter,  hired  by  the  Empire  people,  it  is  alleged, 
was  secreted  in  the  room,  and  took  down  notes  of  all  that 
was  said.  A  transcript  of  results,  properly  signed  and 
sworn  to,  found  their  way  into  the  hands  of  a  detective 
agency,  a  representative  of  which  called  later  on  Mr. 
Winslow. 

"According  to  Mr.  Winslow,  the  detective  represented 
himself  as  working  under  the  directions  of  State 's  Attor- 
ney Wayman  in  an  investigation  of  an  alleged  conspiracy 
to  boost  prices  in  the  sale  of  the  voting  devices  in  Chi- 
cago and  alleged  attempts  to  sandbag  some  of  the  voting 
machine  concerns.  The  inventor  insisted  that  the  people 
controlling  the  Empire  machine  had  in  the  past  bought 
2486  up  other  machines,  such  as  the  United  States,  the  Stand- 
ard, and  the  Dean,  and  that  the  conference  he  had  with 
them  was  for  the  same  purpose  and  for  none  other. 

"Winslow  Consults  Attorney. 

2486  "After  his  first  talk  with  the  detective  Mr.  Winslow 
consulted  his  attorney  and  he  in  turn  visited  State's  At- 
torney Wayman.  The  prosectuor  denied  any  connection 
with  the  activity  of  the  detectives,  declaring,  however, 
that  any  criminal  charges,  whether  of  graft,  or  anything 
else  in  connection  with  voting  machines,  would  if  backed 
by  evidence,  be  given  prompt  and  thorough  attention  of 
the  State's  Attorney's  office  and  the  grand  jury. 

"Upon  discovering  that  the  private  detectives  were  not 
working  under  Mr.  Wayman,  Inventor  Winslow  pro- 
ceeded to  make  countercharges,  declaring  that  the  em- 
ployment of  the  short-hand  reporter  and  the  detectives 
was  for  the  purpose  of  frightening  him  from  bidding  and 
driving  him  out  of  town  and  away  from  the  competition 
before  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  his  rivai 
competitor. 

"Storm  of  Protest  Arises. 

"In  addition  to  the  accusations  and  discords  among  the 
bidders,  there  loomed  up  a  storm  of  protest  from  various 
voting  machine  men  throughout  the  country  who  had  ap- 


Newspaper  Items — Continued.  513 

pealed  to  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  for  time 
within  which  to  file  their  bids  and  submit  models  of  their 

2487  machines.  The  voting  machine  men,  outside  of  the  four 
competing  bidders,  declared  that  the  refusal  on  the  part 
of  a  majority  of  the  board  to  give  at  least  ninety  days* 
time  within  which  to  bid  has  resulted  in  excluding  the 
majority  of  voting  machine  men  of  the  country  from  the 
competition.  Some  of  those  who  asked  for  more  time 
and  who  wished  to  delay  the  opening  of  the  bids  for 
ninety  days  are  complaining  that  the  haste  is  beneficial 
to  one  special  concern. 

"Arthur  L.  Griffin  of  the  Hoosier  Voting  Machine 
Company  of  Middlebury,  Indiana,  who  is  among  those 
making  charges  of  special  favoritism,  has  announced  his 
desire  to  come  to  Chicago  next  week  to  take  a  hand  in  the 
controversy. 

"Among  the  most  important  complaints  are  the  ones 
which  the  American  Voting  Machine  Company,  of  Woo- 
ster,  Ohio,  the  Egry  Register  Company,  of  Dayton,  Ohio, 
and  the  American  Voting  Machine  Company,  of  Boston, 
Massachusetts,  are  making.  These  concerns  all  declare 
that  they  have  communicated  with  the  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  desiring  a  delay  suffi- 
cient to  enable  them  to  build  voting  devices  which  would 
comply  with  the  Illinois  voting  machine  laws. 

"A  voting  machine  which  may  be  excellent  and  deemed 
within  the  legal  requirements  in  Massachusetts  and  other 
states  cannot  be  offered    for    sale    for   use   in   Illinois, 

2488  unless  Illinois  Voting  Machine  Commission,  headed  by 
Secretary  of  State  Eose,  certifies  to  it,  and  unless  it 
complies  with  the  Illinois  laws  concerning  primaries,  cu- 
mulative voting  for  the  Legislature,  and  the  restrictive 
voting  by  women. 

"H.  B.  Schwartz  Dissatisfied. 

"H.  B.  Schwartz  of  the  American  Voting  Machine 
Company  complains  that  he  is  being  discriminated 
against  more  than  others  because  he  organized  a  com- 
pany and  is  at  work  fulfilling  requirements  which  the  for- 
mer Board  of  Election  Commissioners  pointed  out  to  him 
last  year. 

"  '  I  did  what  the  old  board  told  me,  and  now  the  present 
board  does  not  give  me  time  enough  to  give  my  machine 


514  Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki. 

a  chance  in  the  competition,'  said  Mr.  Schwartz  today 
at  the  Hotel  Sherman. 

"it  was  announced  today  that  the  pending  motion  he- 
fore  the  board,  to  limit  the  first  purchase  of  voting  de- 
vices to  120  which  are  to  be  tried  out  and  tested  at  the 
primaries  and  election  of  1912,  will  be  taken  up  for  con- 
sideration after  the  question  of  a  perfect  machine  is  set- 
tled. Attorney  Mitchell  of  the  board  is  now  preparing 
2488  his  report  upon  the  legal  phases  in  accordance  with  the 
board's  order  and  the  three  experts  appointed  by  Judge 
Owens  are  also  expected  to  have  recommendations  ready 
by  next  Saturday. ' ' 

Witness  neither  wrote  nor  furnished  some  parts  of  the 
above  article.  For  example,  the  statements  concerning 
Swartz. 

For  the  reference  in  the  last  paragraph  to  the  "prose- 
cutor denying  any  connection  with  the  activity  of  private 
detectives,"  and  so  forth,  witness  did  furnish  the  in- 
formation. 

Witness  had  seen  Mr.  Wayman  and  got  his  information 
from  him. 

"Q.  I  read  from  page  76  of  June  26th,  1911,  an 
article  entitled,  'Charges  After  Vote.  Eivals  of  Con- 
cerns Favored  by  Election  Board.  Say  Gamblers  Figure 
in  Deal.  Court  Action  Is  Likely.  Resolutions  Advocat- 
ing Expenditure  of  Nearly  Million  Adopted  After  Fight 
by  Commissioner. 

"  'Unexpected  action  taken  at  six  o'clock  last  night  by 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  at  a  long  session  in 
deciding  to  buy  1,000  Empire  voting  machines  at  a  total 
cost  of  $942,000,  brought  forth  sensational  charges  from 
the  three  unsuccessful  competitors  today  and  forecast  a 
vigorous  court  battle.  By  a  vote  of  two  to  one,  Commis- 
sioner Charles  H.  Kellermann,  and  Howard  S.  Taylor 
voting  for,  and  Commissioner  Anthony  Czarnecki,  the 
Republican  minority  member  of  the  board,  voted  against 
2490  the  resolution.  The  move  to  install  voting  machines  in 
this  city  has  been  advanced  further  than  ever  attempted 
here  before. 

"  'One  of  the  sensational  charges  made  today  was  to 
the  effect  that  men  who  have  been  busy  in  gambling  and 
slot-machine  devices  have  shown  a  vital  interest  in  the 
activity  to  install  voting  machines  in  this  city  and  that  a 
former  race-track  magnate  of  Chicago  and  two  race-track 


J 


Newspaper  Items — Continued.  515 

men  of  California  are  among  those  interested  in  the 
Empire  Company.  While  some  friends  of  these  three 
men  maintain  that  their  interest  in  the  Empire  machine  is 
that  caused  by  their  own  investment,  others  declare  that 
they  are  merely  proxies  for  certain  other  Chicagoans  re- 
ported to  be  interested  in  the  voting  devices.' 

2491  *'Mr.  McEwEN.     Right  at  that  point,  did  you  write 
that? 

"A.  The  gambling  proposition  was  brought  in,  I  think, 
by  some  man  connected  with  the  sporting  department  of 
the  Daily  News,  he  must  be  John  Size,  I  am  not  positive, 
who  claims  that  a  Mr. — a  man  named  Condon  here — 

"Q.  I  just  asked  you  whether  you  wrote  that.  A.  I 
do  not  think  I  wrote  that  feature  of  it,  the  gambling  fea- 
ture; it  came  from  another  source. 

"Q.  You  say,  'While  some  friends  of  these  three  men 
maintain  that  their  interest  in  the  Empire  machine  is 
that  caused  by  their  own  investment,  others  declare  that 
they  are  merely  proxies  for  certain  other  Chicagoans  re- 
ported to  be  interested  in  the  voting  devices.'  Did  you 
ever  hear  anybody  say  they  were  proxies?  A.  I  have 
not.  With  reference  to  the  gambling  feature  of  that, 
Judge,  I  recollect  a  number  of  newspaper  men,  yes,  par- 
ticularly some  man  that  was  acquainted  with  the  gentle- 
men of  the  gambling  fraternity  here. 

"Q.    Isn't  that  a  thought—    A.    Sir? 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Let  him  answer ;  he  is  telling. 

"The  Witness  (continuing).  Judge,  that  gambling 
feature  was  introduced  by  others." 

2492  "Q.  (reading)     'Plans  to  Issue  Certificates. 

"  'By  the  action  last  night,  the  board  ignored  the  rec- 
ommendations of  the  Public  Efficiency  Bureau.  It  is  re- 
ported that  the  financing  of  the  project  is  to  be  under  a 
plan  which  Attorney  W.  W.  Wheelock,  counsel  for  the 
•Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  and  foY-mer  attorney 
for  the  Election  Board,  declares  to  be  feasible  and  legal. 
The  plan  is  said  to  involve  the  issuance  of  certificates  of 
indebtedness  by  the  board  and  approval  by  the  County 
Judge,  and  upon  which  judgment  will  be  secured  so  as  to 
make  them  easily  negotiable. 

"  'Judge  Owens  gave  every  member  of  the  board  the 
right  and  power  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  dictates  of 
his  conscience  and  best  judgment  for  the  good  of  the 

2493  public. 


516  Newspaper  Items — Continued. 

' '  Chief  Clerk  William  H.  Stuart,  who  directed  from  the 
beginning  the  project  of  adopting  voting  devices  for  Chi- 
cago at  this  time,  and  Commissioner  Kellermann  and 
Taylor,  whose  votes  settled  the  plan  last  night,  insist  that 
the  action  taken  is  a  step  to  the  most  vital  reform  in  the 
city's  elections.  They  insist  that  Judge  Owens  can  ao 
nothing  else  than  sustain  the  Commissioners  and  that  the 
future  will  prove  that  the  action  was  for  the  best  interests 
of  the  public. 

"On  the  other  hand,  the  unsuccessful  bidders  and  oth- 
ers who  have  Avatched  the  progress  of  the  voting  machine 
plan  which  culminated  in  the  board's  action  yesterday 
are  up  in  arms. 

"Had  Things  Own  Way. 

"  It  is  charged  that  from  the  start  even  before  the  bids 
were  advertised  for,  the  agents  of  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company  thronged  the  office  of  the  Election 
Commissioners  and  had  things  pretty  much  their  own 
way.  They  charged  that  employees  of  the  board  at  the 
election  all  talked  in  favor  of  the  Empire  voting  ma- 
chine, especially  after  that  company  had  paid  some  of  the 
employees  money  for  'extra'  services. 
2494  "An  open  charge  is  made  by  L.  R.  Winslow  of  the  Win- 
slow  Voting  Machine  Company,  and  J.  J.  Farrell  of  the 
Triumph  Company,  that  the  meeting  yesterday  was  a 
star  chamber  session,  from  which  the  voting  machine 
men  were  barred.  They  charged  that  specifications  of 
the  board  were  brushed  aside  in  the  rush  to  secure  action 
favorable  to  the  Empire  people. 

"Labor  Men  Are  Interested. 

"A  committee  of  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  is 
among  those  up  in  arms  because  of  what  they  call  snap 
judgment  having  been  taken  by  the  board.  The  commit- 
tee requested  that  the  Federation  of  Labor  be  notified 
whenever  the  voting  machine  problem  was  to  be  taken  up 
again.  When  the  unexpected  move  to  take  definite  ac- 
tion became  known  yesterday  afternoon  a  telephone  com- 
munication was  sent  to  the  Federation,  but  it  was  impos- 
sible to  get  the  committee  together  to  appear  before  the 
board  in  time  for  the  action.  The  labor  organizations 
had  planned  to  have  their  own  tests  and  inquiries  made 
before  a  machine  was  specifically  selected. 


Newspaper  Items — Continued.  517 

"In  order  to  rush  through  the  resolution  last  night, 
Commissioners  Kellermann  and  Taylor,  and  Chief  Clerk 
Stuart  were  forced  to  ignore  section  18  of  the  board's 
own  specification,  which  provided  that: 

2495  "  'A  public  exhibition  of  all  machines  of  bidders  will 
be  conducted  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  at 
such  times  prior  to  the  award  of  bids  as  said  board  may 
determine.  At  all  such  exhibitions  the  bidder  will  be  re- 
quired to  have  present  a  person  competent  to  demon- 
strate in  every  particular  the  operation  of  the  machine 
offered  in  bid.' 

"Commissioner  Taylor  introduced  the  resolution  which 
started  the  activity.  It  provided  that  the  board  proceed 
to  arrange  immediately  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting 
machines  deliverable  in  installments. 

"Czarnecki  Motions  Lost. 

"Commissioner  Czarnecki  requested  that  the  voting 
machine  men  be  invited  to  be  present  and  hear  the  pro- 
ceedings. Chief  Clerk  Stuart  and  Commissioner  Taylor 
immediately  opposed  the  suggestion.  Then  Mr.  Czar- 
necki before  action  was  taken  on  the  'Purchase'  resolu- 
tion, offered  one  after  another,  a  number  of  motions, 
which  his  colleagues  refused  to  second,  and  upon  which 
he  stood  alone.    His  motions  were  as  follows: 

"  'That  the  board  before  passing  any  further  in  the 
matter  proceed  to  make  its  own  test  with  reference  to  the 
grouping  of  fifteen  or  twenty  names  for  an  ofiSce  to  de- 
termine whether  the  future  requirements  of  the  election 
conditions  can  be  complied  with. 

"  'That  the  first  purchase  of  machines  be  limited  to 
120,  to  be  tried  out  at  the  primaries  and  elections  of  next 

2496  year. '  This  was  a  renewed  motion  upon  which  no  action 
had  been  taken. 

"  'That  the  attorney  for  the  board  be  required  to  pre- 
sent to  the  board  a  copy  of  his  opinion  with  reference  to 
the  financing  of  the  purchase  of  machines,'  this  also  being 
a  renewed  motion. 

"  'That  the  board  hold  a  conference  with  the  officials 
in  charge  of  Chicago's  finances — the  Mayor,  City  Treas- 
urer, City  Comptroller,  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee, and  Corporation  Counsel — as  to  the  method  of 
financing  the  purchase.'  This  motion  was  also  a  renewed 
one. 


518  Newspaper  Items — Continued. 

"  'That  the  question  of  expending  the  sum  necessary 
for  the  purchase  be  submitted  to  the  voters  of  the  city  at 
the  next  election,  before  action  be  taken. 

' '  '  That  section  18  of  the  specifications  be  complied  with 
before  the  resolution  to  purchase  be  considered ;  and 

"  'That  the  Empire  Company  be  ordered  to  produce 
before  the  board  a  machine  which  would  have  the  various 
objections  corrected,  before  the  awarding  of  a  contract 
be  considered.' 

"None  of  the  motions  were  seconded." 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  read  the  item  from  page  80,  identified 
by  the  witness,  with  the  headlines,  "Election  Body  De- 
fies.   Commissioners  Ignore  Protest  of  Vote  Device  Men 

2497  on  $942,000  Contract.  Charges  Against  Officials.  Com- 
pany Agents  Attack  Judge  Owens,  Kellermann  and  Tay- 
lor.   Court  Next  Step  in  Fight." 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  By  the  way,  was  there  ever  a  court 
proceeding  brought  ? 

A.    I  think  somebody  brought  some  action. 

Q.  That  was  Maxwell  Edgar's  suit,  wasn't  it?  A. 
There  was  some  suit  of  some  kind. 

The  Chaieman.  Mr.  Edgar  was  the  attorney  for  the 
party  that  brought  the  suit. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    Yes,  he  was  the  attorney. 

The  Witness.  But  there  were  threats  made  by  com- 
panies at  that  time. 

Mr.  McEwEK.  That  bill  was  stricken  from  the  files  for 
a  scandal,  that  was  the  end  of  it. 

A.  I  do  not  know  why  it  was,  I  do  not  know  anything 
about  that. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  understand  that  that  bill  is  pending,  is 
it  not,  Judge? 

Mr.  McEwen.    Well,  I  do  not  know. 

The  Witness.  But  the  voting  machine  men  themselves 
threatened  to  go  into  the  courts  at  that  time? 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  Well,  they  didn 't  go  ?  A.  Not  then, 
no,  sir. 

2498  Q.  I  just  simply  asked  to  find  out,  I  thought  you  prob- 
ably knew.    A.    No,  there  is  nobody  that  I  know. 

Q.  I  am  not  informed  except  as  I  indicated  by  my 
question.    It  is  an  easy  matter  to  look  up. 

(Reading:)  "Defiance  was  hurled  today  at  representa- 
tives of  various  voting  machine  concerns  by  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners.  Formal  notification  that  per- 
sistence in  determination  to  favor  the  Empire  Voting 


Newspaper  Items — Continued.  519 

Machine  Company  in  awarding  a  $942,000  contract  for 
the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  machines  would  result  in 
court  proceedings  was  ignored.  The  board  voted  two  to 
one  to  refuse  to  reopen  the  investigation  of  the  qualifica- 
tions of  voting  machines. 

' '  By  the  same  vote  it  was  agreed  to  lay  on  the  table  pro- 
tests filed  by  two  voting  machine  companies,  which  con- 
tained charges  concerning  the  manner  in  which  the  ac- 
tions favoring  the  Empire  Company  had  been  taken." 

Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  Do  the  records  show  that  they  were 
laid  on  the  table?    A.    Tabled. 

Q.  Or  just  placed  on  file  ?  A.  That  is  what  they 
meant. 

Q.     (reading)    "Owens  and  Others  Involved. 

"These  charges  included  allegations  which  concerned 
the  veracity  of  County  Judge  John  E.  Owens,  Chairman 
Charles  H.  Kellermann  of  the  board  and  Commissioner 
Howard  S.  Taylor.  They  led  to  a  heated  controversy 
2499  at  the  meeting  of  the  board,  at  which  the  representatives 
of  the  voting  machine  companies  refused  to  retract  the 
charges  made  concerning  the  officials. 

"As  a  result  of  the  action  of  the  board,  the  representa- 
tives of  the  International  and  the  Triumph  Voting  Ma- 
chine Companies,  which  claim  they  are  the  victims  of 
unfair  discrimination  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners, will  go  into  the  courts  in  an  effort  to  tie  up  the 
contract,  which  the  board  had  virtually  agreed  to  award 
to  the  Empire  Company.  Actions  against  the  experts, 
who  made  the .  report  upon  which  the  Commissioners 
acted,  are  also  planned  by  the  two  companies,  which  al- 
lege that  they  have  been  seriously  injured  in  their  busi- 
ness by  accusations  contained  in  the  reports. 

"Protest  Filed  by  Company. 

"The  charges  upon  which  the  protests  of  the  two  com- 
panies were  based  are  contained  in  a  document  filed  with 
the  board  by  the  International  Company.  The  protest 
follows : 

"To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Election  Commissioners, 
Chicago,  Illinois,  Gentlemen :  Whereas,  the  International 
Voting  Machine  Company,  acting  in  good  faith,  placed 
with  this  board  a  bid  for  voting  machines  for  the  City  of 
2499  Chicago,  in  accordance  with  the  advertisements  and 
specifications  issued  by  your  Honorable  Board,  and 


520  Newspaper  Items — Continued. 

"Whereas,  in  order  to  make  such  a  bid  we  were  com- 
pelled to  deposit  with  the  chairman  of  this  board  a  certi- 
fied check  for  five  (5)  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of  the  bid, 
2500  which  in  our  case  was  fifty-four  thousand  (54,000)  dol- 
lars, and  to  prepare,  at  great  labor  and  expense,  blue- 
prints and  drawings  showing  every  part  of  our  machine, 
together  with  photographs  and  printed  instructions  and 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  International  machines,  and 

"  'Whereas,  the  chairman  of  the  board  did  not  turn 
this  certified  check  over  to  the  ^Election  Board,  nor  de- 
posit it  with  the  Comptroller  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  as 
he  had  informed  the  treasurer  of  the  International  Voting 
Machine  Company  he  would  do,  but  did,  on  the  con- 
trary, cash  the  check  and  place  the  money  in  his  own 
private  banking  account,  where  he  had  the  privilege  of 
using  it  for  his  own  personal  purposes  at  any  time  he  saw 
fit,  without  so  much  as  consulting  the  other  members  of 
the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  loaners  of  the  money,  who  were  thus  in  continual 
danger  of  losing  the  entire  amount,  and 

"Whereas,  it  has  developed  that  the  drawings,  photo- 
graphs, and  blueprints,  which  were  prepared  by  us  at 
great  expense  for  the  supposed  enlightenment  of  the 
mechanical  experts  of  this  board,  were  never  opened  nor 
examined  by  the  members  of  this  board,  nor  by  their 
mechanical  experts,  but  were  returned  to  us  in  the  orig- 
inal packages  with  the  seals  unbroken,  thereby  revealing 
an  evidence  of  bad  faith,  and 

"  'Whereas,  the  mechanical  experts  selected  to  examine 
the  machines  made  a  most  superficial  examination  of  the 
International  voting  machine,  and  in  their  report  to  this 
board  made  statements  relative  to  the  machine  which  are 
inconsistent,  misleading  and  false,  thereby  working  un- 
told injury  to  the  good  name  of  the  product  which  has 
caused  this  company  thirteen  years  of  persistent  effort, 
and  almost  $400,000  in  cash,  and 

"  'Whereas,  this  board  apparently  accepted  the  state- 
ments of  the  said  experts  at  their  face  value,  and,  concur- 
ring in  that  report,  published  these  false  statements  to 
the  world,  and  further  proceeded  to  purchase  voting  ma- 
chines for  the  City  of  Chicago  in  accordance  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  experts,  and  without  giving  us  a 
chance  to  be  heard,  although  our  attorney  demanded  such 
a  hearing  on  the  day  that  the  action  was  taken,  and  was 
faithfully  promised  such  a  hearing  by  the  judge  of  the 


Newspaper  Items— Continued.  521 

County  Court  of  Cook  County,  under  whose  instructions 
this  board  is  supposed  to  be  acting,  and  also  by  Commis- 
sioner Taylor,  who  agreed  to  notify  our  attorney  over 

2501  the  phone  before  any  action  was  taken,  which  notice  he 
neglected  to  give,  and 

"Whereas,  the  specifications  issued  by  this  board  under 
the  date  of  April  27,  1911,  made  provision  for  a  public 
hearing  and  exhibition  of  all  voting  machines  submitted 
to  this  board,  which  exhibition  was  never  held,  and 

"Whereas,  the  International  Voting  Machine  Company 

2502  believes  that  the  action  of  the  experts  and  of  the  -board 
itself  has  wrought  untold  injury  and  financial  loss  to  said 
International  Voting  Machine  Company, 

"Therefore,  we  demand  that  the  board  rescind  such 
action  as  has  already  been  taken,  reopen  the  case  and 
give  us  an  opportunity  for  a  full  and  complete  public 
hearing  in  answer  to  the  report  of  the  experts,  and  we 
hereby  notify  the  members  of  this  board  that  unless  such 
action  is  taken  we  will  be  compelled  to  go  into  court  to 
protect  our  own  good  name  and  property  interests. 
(Signed)     International  Voting  Machine  Company, 

Robert  Petrie,  President. 

E.  R.  Kelly,  Secretary." 

"Kellermann  Deposits  Check. 

"Before  the  meeting  was  called  the  representatives  of 
the  voting  machine  companies  were    handed    certified 

2502  checks  for  $116,500,  which  they  had  been  obliged  to  de- 
posit with  Charles  H.  Kellermann,  chairman  of  the  Elec- 
tion Board,  when  they  submitted  their  bids  upon  the  bid 
contract.  The  representatives  of  the  three  companies 
had  called  upon  Mr.  Kellermann  for  these  checks  on  Sat- 
urday, but  they  were  unable  to  find  him.  They  then 
learned  for  the  first  time,  they  declared  at  the  meeting  of 
the  board,  that  the  checks  had  not  been  deposited  to  the 
account  of  the  Election  Board,  but  to  the  personal  ac- 
count of  Charles  H.  Kellermann  in  the  Commercial  & 

2503  Continental  National  Bank. 

"It  was  the  action  of  Mr.  Kellermann  in  depositing 
these  checks  to  his  own  account  which  forms  the  basis  of 
one  of  the  charges  made  in  the  protest  of  the  companies, 
and  which  led  to  a  lively  scene  at  the  board  meeting. 


» 


522  Newspaper  Items — Continued. 

"New  Checks  Given  in  Return. 

"When  Chairman  Kellermann  arrived  at  his  office  this 
morning,  he  found  A.  L.  Hall,  treasurer  of  the  Inter- 
national Company;  L.  R.  Winslow,  of  the  Winslow  Com- 
pany, and  John  J.  Farrell,  of  the  Triumph  Company, 
waiting  for  him.  They  immediately  asked  for  the  checks 
and  were  assured  that  they  would  be  turned  over  to  them 
immediately.  Then  Chairman  Kellermann  and  Secretary 
Czarnecki  of  the  board  went  to  the  bank  and  secured  the 
checks. 

"Banker  Defends  Kellermann. 

"Then  Mr.  Kellermann  obtained  from  Vice-President 

2503  J.  R.  Chapman  of  the  bank  a  statement  of  his  action  in 
depositing  the  checks  to  his  personal  account.  This  ex- 
planation is  as  follows : 

"  'Continental  «&  Commercial  National  Bank,  Chicago, 
July  3, 1911 : — Anthony  Czarnecki,  secretary  of  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners,  Chicago,  Illinois. — Dear  Sir: 
This  is  to  advise  you  that  C.  H.  Kellermann  on  the  first 
day  of  June,  1911,  deposited  in  this  bank  $170,550  and 
that  this  amount  has  been  here  continually  unt'l  date. 
Mr.  Kellermann  chose  this  bank  as  a  depository  for  his 
money  because  he  had  been  doing  business  with  the  Amer- 
ican Trust  &  Savings  Bank,  which  has  unified  its  interests 
with  this  bank,  for  a  number  of  years,  and  has  always  been 
esteemed  a  customer  of  that  institution. 

"  'Also  knowing  the  strength  of  the  bank  lie  preferred 
to  deposit  the  checks  rather  than  hold  them  or  put  them  in 
the  safety  deposit  box,  and  for  this  action  he  thinks  that 
he  should  not  be  subject  to  any  criticism. 
"  'Respectfully  yours, 

"  'J.  R.  Chapman. 

"  'Vice-President.' 

"Interest  $227  is  Problem. 

"Mr.  Kellermann  also  secured  a  statement  from  the 
bank.  This  showed  that  $227.18  was  due  as  intei-est  on 
the  amount  deposited. 

2504  "What  is  going  to  become  of  that  interest?  he  was 
asked. 

"  'That  is  for  the  board  to  decide,'  he  said.    'Person- 
ally, I  believe  I  am  entitled  to  it,  but  I  don't  want  it.' 
' '  Taylor  denies  charges. 


i 


Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki.  523 

"The  checks  being  turned  over  and  receipted  for  the 
board  got  down  to  business.  The  protests  of  the  two  com- 
panies were  read. 

"When  the  reading  had  finished  Commissioner  Tay- 
2505  lor  arose.  'I  want  to  say  that  the  statement  tliat  T  made 
any  promise  to  give  the  attorney  for  the  International  a 
hearing  before  the  board  is  false.  I  never  made  such  a 
promise.  I  told  Attorney  Coburn  that  I  would  present 
the  question  of  whether  attorneys  should  be  heard  to  the 
board  and  I  did.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  statement  which 
concerns  a  promise  by  Judge  Owens  is  as  unqualifiedly 
false  as  the  one  concerning  myself.' 

"Kellermann  Makes  Denial. 

"Then  Chairman  Kellermann  arose:  *I  want  to  say 
I  never  promised  to  deposit  the  checks  with  the  City 
Comptroller.  I  did  consult  with  the  members  of  the  board 
and  with  Judge  Owens,  and  I  did  deposit  the  checks  in  the 
Continental  National  Bank,  but  I  never  knew  that  they 
could  be  deposited  with  the  City  Comptroller.  T  demand 
2505  that  the  statement  I  did  be  retracted.' 

"Hall  Retorts  to  Members. 

"A.  L.  Hall,  treasurer  of  the  International  Company, 
replied  to  Mr.  Kellermann:  *0n  May  27th  T  asked  you 
what  would  be  done  with  the  checks.  You  mentioned  the 
City  Comptroller  in  that  conversation.  I  certainly  un- 
derstood as  well  as  I  do  anything  that  the  checks  were  to 
be  deposited  with  him. 

"  'That  satisfied  me  because  I  knew  that  I  was  pro- 
tected, for  the  City  Comptroller  was  a  bonded  official.  It 
was  not- until  last  Saturday  that  I  knew  they  were  depos- 
ited to  your  personal  account  and  that  you  admitted  to 
me  that  we  had  little  or  no  protection,  as  you  are  only 
under  a  bond  of  $10,000.  Had  I  known  that  before  I  cer- 
tainly would  have  immediately  taken  steps  to  protect  that 
check. ' 

"Kellermann  Retorts;  Denies. 

"  *I  never  mentioned  the  City  Comptroller.  T  couldn't 
have  deposited  with  him,'  replied  Mr.  Kellermann.  'Why, 
the  check  was  made  out  to  me  as  chairman  of  the  Election 
Board,  and  it  was  endorsed  that  way. 


524  Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki. 

"  'But  deposited  to  your  personal  account,  not  to  tliat 
of  the  Election  Board.' 
"  'Yes.' 

2506  ' '  '  And  not  protected  further  ? ' 
"  'No.' 

"  'And  in  case  of  your  death  or  failure  in  business 
there  was  no  way  in  which  we  could  get  our  money.  That 
is  what  you  admitted  on  Saturday.' 

"Commissioner  Taylor  interrupted  with  a  motion  that 
the  protests  be  ignored  and  placed  on  file. 

"  CzABNECKi  Is  Voted  Dowx. 

"Commissioner  Czarnecki  moved  as  a  substitute  that 
the  action  taken  by  the  board  Friday  be  rescinded,  that 
the  investigation  of  the  merits  of  the  various  voting  ma- 

2507  chines  be  reopened  and  that  the  companies  be  i>iven  an 
opportunity  to  reply  to  the  criticism  of  the  experts. 

"  'I  wouldn't  want  to  do  that  until  I  consulted  the 
Judge,'  said  Commissioner  Kellermann,  referring  to 
Judge  Owens. 

"Commissioner  Taylor  declared  that  he  was  opposed 
to  any  kind  of  delay.  There  was  no  second  to  (Commis- 
sioner Czarnecki 's  motion  and  the  motion  of  Commis- 
sioner Taylor  to  file  and  ignore  the  protests  was  then 
carried.  Commissioners  Kellermann  and  Taylor  voting 
for  it  and  Commissioner  Czarnecki  against  it. 

"Czarnecki  Seeks  Fobfeit. 

"Commissioner  Czarnecki  then  asked  H.  W.  Barr,  rep- 
2507  resenting  the  Empire  Company  as  to  the  length  of  time 
it  would  take  for  him  to  furnish  a  sample  machine,  pro- 
vided for  in  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  board  Friday. 
Mr.  Barr  replied  that  the  maximum  length  of  time  was 
six  months.  Commissioner  Czarnecki  suggested  that  the 
company  should  be  compelled  to  make  a  cash  deposit  to 
guarantee  the  delivery  of  the  machine  in  this  length  of 
time,  but  it  received  no  second.  The  board  later  ordered 
the  company  to  furnish  a  sample  machine  in  three  months ' 
time. 

' '  Then  it  was  voted  to  place  the  check  covering  the  con- 
tract of  the  Empire  Company,  which  still  remained  on 
deposit  with  the  Continental  and  Commercial  National 
Bank,  in  a  trust  fund,  which  could  only  be  dravn  upon 
over  the  signature  of  the  three  Commissioners." 


Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki.  525 


Volume  XXIV. 

Morning  Session, 
Thursday,  August  19,  1913. 

Anthony  Czarnecki  resumes  the  stand: 

2509  Further  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEiven. 

Witness  wrote  articles  for  other  papers  than  the  Daily 
News. 

"  Q.  In  the  line  of  work  for  the  Commission  or  other 
matters?  A.  Why,  I  wrote  a  series  of  articles  for  the 
Examiner  in  July,  1911,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  A.  M.  Law- 
rence; that  was  a  different  line  of  work;  it  was  not  in 
connection  with  anything  on  the  board." 

At  the  beginning  of  the  consideration  of  voting  ma- 
chines by  the  Election  Commissioners,  witness  was  in 
favor  of  them  up  to  the  point  where  the  Commissioners 
Avere  considering  the  specifications. 

2510  Did  then  and  has  not  now  ceased  to  favor  voting  ma- 
chines if  a  proper  machine  is  found.  Witness  has  never 
seen  such  a  machine. 

2511  Witness  thought  a  machine  of  the  Empire  size  too 
heavy  and  cumbersome. 

2512  A  machine  that  two  men  could  carry  to  the  place  of 
election  and  bring  away  from  there  would  be  a  desirable 
machine  so  far  as  weight  is  concerned. 

Witness  never  opposed  the  consideration  of  voting  ma- 
chines by  the  Election  Commissioners,  "but  when  we  got 
into  the  specifications,  and  when  the  25-day  limit  was  set, 
and  when  the  proposition  of  5  per  cent,  of  a  purchase  of 
1,000  or  1,400, 1,200  machines  came  up  and  when  the  speci- 
fications set  forth  the  full  purchase  of  the  amount  neces- 
sarj'  to  equip  Chicago,  that  was  my  time  for  opposing  the 
question,  the  proposition  as  it  was  before  our  full  body. 

"Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  contemplate  that  you  were 
in  favor  of  purchasing  a  complete  set  of  voting  machines 
for  the  City  of  Chicago? 

2513  "A.  All  during  the  time  of  our  offer  after  they  were 
tried  out  at  an  election  and  by  all  sorts  of  public  tests 
they  were  found  to  be  good  and  that  they  were  a  benefit 
and  were  tried  out  properly,  why,  I  think  I  would  ulti- 
mately, but  not  initially. ' ' 


I 


526  Testimony  of  A.  CzarnecM. 

2514  The  motion  of  witness  that  each  voting  machine  be 
certified  by  the  State  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  was 
made  \\dth  reference  to  the  voting  machines  to  be  used  ex- 
perimentally at  the  city  election  so  that  the  use  of  the 
machines  would  not  vitiate  the  election.  The  fact  that 
each  certificate  would  cost  $100  was  not  mentioned  at  that 
time. 

Witness  had  in  mind  the  point  raised  by  Mr.  Haight  rep- 
resenting Candidate  Merriam,  and  did  not  make  the  mo- 
tion for  obstruction  purposes. 

2515  Witness  wanted  Attorney  Mitchell  present  wlien  the 
specifications  were  presented  to  the  board,  because  he  had 
helped  prepare  them. 

Witness  asked  for  delay  in  consideration  and  reading 
of  specifications  because  he  had  not  read  the  draft.  AVit- 
ness  had  no  general  policy  of  delay  in  mind. 

2517  Witness  participated  in  the  discussion  of  the  specifica- 
tions and  tried  to  get  them  to  meet  his  judgment. 

2518  Witness  did  not  make  his  motions  with  a  view  to  pre- 
venting action  in  the  future,  but  "to  be  as  fair  in  our 
specifications  as  I  thought  the  old  board  had  been. ' ' 

Witness  discussed  the  subject  of  time  for  filing  bids. 
He  thought  the  old  board  had  given  too  much  time,  and 
suggested  three  or  four  months. 

At  that  time  witness  had  met  Mr.  Hall  and  Mr.  Petrie 
of  the  International  machine. 

2519  And  Mr.  Winslow,  if  he  was  present  at  the  meeting. 
Witness  never  met  any  voting  machine  men  at  any  time 

at  any  newspaper  office. 

Witness  had  also  met  Mr.  Farrell  at  the  Election  Com- 
missioners' rooms. 

2520  When  witness  was  discussing  the  question  of  time  for 
filing  bids  he  did  not  know  the  condition  of  any  voting 
machine  company's  plant,  or  how  many  voting  machine 
companies  were  equipped  for  manufacturing.  "I  looked 
upon  it  as  an  initial  industry." 

2521  Witness  did  not  think  25  days  time  enough.  _  Was  of 
this  opinion,  not  because  of  any  special  information,  "but 
it  was  a  new  problem  on  the  board  and  I  considered  a  new 

2522  problem  like  that  ought  not  to  be  rushed." 

2524  Witness  did  not  look  up  the  various  protests  as  to 
whether  they  were  true  or  false  or  from  persons  who  had 
a  patent  to  sell. 

Some  of  the  men  who  protested  were  present.  Said 
they  had  factories,  and  talked  with  the  chief  clerk. 


Testimony  of  A.  CzarnecJci.  527 

2525  Witness  had  read  the  reports  of  the  old  board  and  knew 
that  there  was  some  merger  of  machines  into  one. 

Witness  did  not  know  how  many  voting  machines  there 
were  in  the  country. 

Witness  knew  Mr.  Sykes  and  Mr.  Keeler  of  the  Bureau 
of  Public  Efficiency. 

2526  Witness  thinks  he  talked  with  them  at  the  board  rooms 
and  also  called  on  Mr.  Keeler  at  the  office  of  the  Bureau 
of  Public  Efficiency  after  their  report  came  out. 

Witness  read  the  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Public  Effi- 
ciency and  thinks  they  had  adopted  some  of  the  witness' 
suggestions. 

2527  After  the  report  of  the  experts  of  Judge  Owens,  witness 
still  thought  that  the  voting  machines  were  not  tiie  best 
for  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Witness  had  various  objections  to  the  Empire  ma- 
chine. Thought  that  the  voting  machine  for  Chicago 
should  have  a  party  lever,  for  ' '  I  thought  they  could  vote 

2528  within  one  minute  a  scratched  ticket." 

Witness  also  suggested  to  the  three  experts  the  placing 
of  celluloid  on  the  face  of  the  machine  so  that  the  names 
could  not  be  cut  out  and  transposed  on  the  face  of  the 
machine. 

Witness  thinks  the  question  of  obstructions  on  the  face 
of  the  machine  was  discussed  with  the  experts. 
2530     Witness  did  not  have  in  mind  the  difficulty  of  applying 
a  party-lever  to  a  voting  machine  with  a  cumulative  de- 
vice at  the  time  he  was  insisting  upon  the  party-lever. 

The  absence  of  a  party -lever  did  not,  in  the  witness' 
judgment,  absolutely  disqualify  the  Empire  machine  for 
the  City  of  Chicago. 

2533  Witness  is  asked  whether  he  considered  the  Empire  ma- 
chine a  suitable  machine  for  Chicago,  and  answers,  "I  at 
no  time  altogether  considered  it  a  perfect  machine."  It 
was  not  the  absence  or  the  party-lever  alone,  but  the  ab- 
sence of  other  features  and  the  disadvantages  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Empire  machine  that  made  it,  in  the  witness ' 
judgment,  unsuitable  for  use  in  Chicago. 

2534  Witness  thought  the  machine  might  be  used,  legally, 
but  that  it  was  a  bad  business  proposition  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

2535  In  moving  to  purchase  120  instead  of  1,200  machines, 
the  witness  "wanted  the  blunder  to  be  as  small  as  pos- 
sible." 

Witness  had  stated  that  the  four  machines  exhibited 


528  Testimony  of  A.  Czarnecki. 

contained  certain  good  points  and  that  all  these  should 
be  incorporated  in  one  machine.  He  had  not  considered 
the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this,  especially  with  regard 
to  the  ownership  of  patents. 

2536  Witness  did  not  have  in  mind  a  consolidation  of  the 
machines,  nor  can  he  remember  Avhat  particular  good 
points  might  have  been  taken  from  each  machine;  if  all 
had  been  taken  it  would  not  have  met  his  objections.  "I 
would  have  to  see  the  machine." 

2537  Witness  considered  that  the  voting  machine  must  meet 
primary  requirements.  *'We  considered  the  primary  as  an 
election  always." 

One  of  the  purposes  of  witness  in  making  his  motions 
regarding  voting  machines  after  the  resolution  was 
passed,  was  to  put  himself  clear  in  the  record,  but  he 
thought  also  that  some  of  them  might  carry. 

2539  At  the  meeting  of  July  21st  a  letter  from  a  man  named 
Garrett  was  received,  claiming  to  be  in  patent  litigation 
with  the  Empire'Voting  Machine  Company,  and  witness 
made  a  motion  that  it  be  referred  to  the  attorney  of  the 
Election  Commissioners  for  investigation. 

"I  did  not  have  any  idea  that  the  contract  would  be 
taken  up  that  day. ' ' 

2540  Witness  was  not  influenced  in  his  action  following  the 
letting  of  the  contract  by  the  newspapers. 

2541  "Q.  Now  you  think  that  a  voting  machine  should  be 
voted  in  a  minute,  regardless  of  how  many  names,  or 
regardless  of  conditions  in  Chicago?  A.  I  don't  say 
that  it  should  be ;  the  law  says  so. ' ' 

2544  The  one  minute  requirement  of  the  law  was  one  reason 
why  the  witness  insisted  upon  a  party-lever  as  coming 
near  to  complying  with  it. 

After  the  report  of  the  experts  on  the  first  machine  the 
slot  for  independent  voting  on  the  Empire  machine  was 
enlarged.    Witness  thinks  it  is  still  too  small. 

2546  Witness  gave  Professor  Chamberlain  the  names  that 
might  be  expected  to  appear  as  candidates  for  presiden- 
tial electors  and  that  the  slot  should  be  big  enough  to 
accommodate  them. 

Witness  Avanted  visible  voting;  that  is,  such  improve- 
ment to  the  machinery  as  would  indicate  to  the  voter 
"just  what  he  is  doing."  No  machine  exhibiting  had 
such  voting. 

2548  In  the  discussion  of  voting  machines  with  a  printing 
device,  something  may  have  been  said  about  how  that 


Value  of  Printed  Record.  529 

could  be  imposed  upon.  What  the  witness  had  in  mind 
was,  "If  the  election  was  on  the  4th  of  April  and  the  pri- 
mary on  the  11th  they  should  have  a  printed  record  and 
use  the  machines  at  the  same  time. ' ' 

2549  * '  That  came  up  in  1911  and  that  was  one  of  the  things 
before  my  mind." 

A  record  taken  from  the  machine  by  representatives 
of  the  different  parties  would  help  to  meet  the  objection 
to  the  machine  that  does  not  print  its  own  record,  but 
not  completely. 

2550  The  Election  Commissioners  paid  no  attention  to  the 
placing  of  ballots  on  the  voting  machine.  ' '  We  left  that 
to  the  chief  clerk." 

The  Supreme  Court  allowed  the  Election  Commission- 
ers to  use  the  voting  machines  and  in  a  case  pending  be- 
fore the  court  the  witness  filed  a  separate  answer  seek- 
ing to  have  the  court  decide  whether  this  machine  com- 
plied with  the  law  or  not. 

Witness  is  asked  whether  he  had  seen  a  plate  on  a 
voting  machine  that  said  "Made  at  Rochester,"  and  an- 
swers he  saw  a  plate  "Rochester,  New  York."  Does  not 
remember  what  else  was  on  it. 

The  Election  Commissioners  did  not  send  out  instruc- 
tions telling  voters  to  "scratch  the  ticket  first  and  then 
pick  up  your  straight  party  afterwards." 

2551  "Q.  Did  you  study  the  possibility  of  frauds  by  the 
custodian!  A.  No,  sir,  not  until  this  matter  came  up 
now.  I  never  dreamed,  never  thought  that  such  things 
were  possible  on  that  machine. 

"Q.  It  never  occurred  to  you  that  dishonesty  in  the 
warehouse  should  be  looked  after?  A.  I  didn't  think 
you  could  manipulate  that  mechanism  back  there.  I  re- 
lied on  our  three  experts,  and  I  thought  they  would  point 
out  to  us  any  such  dangers  specifically." 

2552  The  Election  Commissioners  permit  different  parties 
to  have  watchers  to  watch  the  printing  of  ballots  as  a 
protection  against  fraud  and  error. 

2552-3  Having  watched  the  experiments  upon  the  machine 
in  the  hearing  room,  witness  thinks  that  the  best  way  to 
guard  against  fraud  would  be  to  have  reliable  experts 
present  at  the  warehouse  when  the  machines  are  being 
set  up.  Fraud  by  the  human  element  is  only  to  be 
guarded  against  by  watching. 

2553-4  Witness  became  acquainted  with  agents  for  the  ma- 
chines between  March  and  the  time  the  contract  was  let. 


530  Witness  Had  Heard  of  Fraud  on  Machine. 

Witness  only  talked  with  Mr.  Barr  in  the  office  and 
then  only  casually. 

Never  talked  with  Mr.  Lawrence  during  the  entire  time 
about  voting  machines. 
2555  Section  1,  paragraph  O  of  the  specifications  provided 
that  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  relative  advan- 
tages of  voting  machines,  they  could  not  be  examined  by 
any  other  experts.  The  representatives  of  other  machines 
were  never  given  opportunities  to  examine  competing 
machines.    The  voting  machine  men  agreed  on  this. 

2557  In  moving  for  the  purchase  of  120  machines  only  the 
witness  wanted  an  opportunity  to  try  out  these  machines 
and  enlighten  public  sentiment  upon  the  subject.  "If 
120  machines  had  turned  out  fine  in  those  120  precincts 
you  would  have  had  the  people  in  120  precincts  going 
around  all  over  the  town  practically  forcing  the  purchase 
of  the  rest  of  them. ' ' 

2558  Where  voting  machines  were  used  at  the  spring,  1913, 
election,  paper  ballots  were  not  also  used.  The  ballot 
was  very  small;  there  was  no  complaint  in  that  election 
about  voters  not  being  able  to  vote  in  a  minute. 

2559  There  was  no  complaint  about  moving  machines  at  this 
election.  Witness  does  not  know  of  any  pasters  on  the 
voting  machines  at  this  election. 

2560  The  blueprints,  photographs,  instructions,  and  so  forth, 
of  the  exhibiting  machines  were  in  the  room  where  they 
were  exhibited  to  the  Election  Commissioners  and  the 
experts.     They  were  not  called  for  by  the  experts. 

Witness  did  not  vote  for  the  appointment  of  Judge 
Owens'  experts,  but  did  vote  later  to  pay  them  for  their 
work.  Witness  does  not  remember  the  particular  time. 
2562  Witness  thinks  the  manipulations  of  the  machine  dis- 
•  played  by  Professor  Depuy  could  not  be  worked  success- 
fully on  a  machine  "not  when  we  are  on  the  job." 

"Q  You  do  not  know  of  any  fraudulent  voting  hav- 
ing been  done  by  this  machine?  A.  Well,  Mr.  Northup 
has,  in  examining  witnesses,  given  some  information,  and 
he  is  still  delving  into  it  in  certain  precincts,  but  I  do  not 
know  what  the  result  will  be  right  at  this  time.  There 
have  been  claims  made  that  it  has  been  done  at  some 
elections  for  some  offices,  but  all  I  have  got  for  that  is 
what  Mr.  Northup  told  me. 

"Q.  How  was  that  done,  by  any  of  these  mechanical 
devices  prepared  by  Professor  Depuy?  A.  Mr.  Northup 
stated  to  me  for  the  truth  that  he  had  a  number  of  wit- 


Grand  Jury  Report  Not  Read  by  Commission.        531 

nesses  coming  in  to  testify  before  the  grand  jury  that 
when  they  voted  their  ticket  two  keys  were  pulled  down ; 
that  they  voted  by  instructions  and  that  two  keys  were 
pulled  down.  Now,  if  it  is  proven  that  the  straight  party 
key  was  very  much  similar  to  one  of  the  experiments  that 
Professor  Depuy  showed  up,  although  what  may  have 
really  happened  was  the  judge  pulled  down  two  keys  of 
the  candidate  and  the  machine  voted,  and  he  said  he 
voted  two  keys,  but  I  can't  state  about  that." 

2563  Witness  did  not  think  that  the  Empire  voting  ma- 
chine was  as  susceptible  of  manipulation  as  has  been 
shown  at  this  hearing,  though  he  has  been  told  that  the 
machines  have  been  made  to  vote  1%  votes  for  represen- 
tatives. 

2564  The  custodian  has  to  reset  the  machine  for  each  elec- 
tion. 

2566  Witness  testifies  that  an  election  contest  is  pending 
here  which  involves  the  accuracy  and  integrity  of  about 
9,000  ballots. 

During  the  election  nearly  500  machines  were  used  in 
ten  wards  of  the  city. 

2568  The  grand  jury  report  of  1908  was  never  taken  up  and 
read  in  connection  with  the  voting  machine.  It  came  up 
in  connection  with  the  ousting  of  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners. 

There  was  no  discussion  of  the  question  of  limiting  the 
time  for  bidding  on  voting  machines  to  25  days ;  the  bids 
were  open  to  all  competitors. 

2569  Witness  would  have  been  willing  to  vote  for  a  machine 
that  complied  with  provisions  of  the  law  and  was  adapta- 
ble to  the  conditions  in  Chicago. 

The  question  had  been  voted  upon  by  the  people  of 
Chicago  and  the  machine  should  be  adaptable  to  condi- 
tions here. 

2570  In  last  spring's  election  voting  machines  were  used  "I 
think  in  some  of  the  river  wards,  the  First,  the  Eight- 
eenth and  the  Twenty-first." 

2570-71  Witness  gives  the  boundaries  of  the  First  and 
Twenty-first  wards.  The  rules  require  that  each  voting 
machine  should  be  in  the  warehouse  by  12  o'clock  the 
night  of  the  election,  and  witness  thinks  the  contract 
with  the  dray  men  was  made  with  that  condition  incor- 
porated. 

2572  Election  precincts  are  clear  from  Hegewisch,  20  miles 
south,  to  Evanston,  18  or  20  miles  north. 


532  Testimony  of  J.  S.  Keeley. 

"Witness  does  not  know,  of  liis  personal  knowledge,  of 
any  machine  being  held  50  hours  at  the  polling  precincts 
before  delivery  at  the  warehouse,  "but  there  was  some- 
thing read  from  the  report  of  Mr.  Hoff's  which  would 
indicate  that  somebody  was  handling  the  machine,  but 
Avhether  that  was  off  the  platform  or  where  they  were 
handled  thus  far,  I  do  not  know." 
2573  Witness  cannot  recall  whether  the  serial  number  of 
the  second  Empire  voting  machine  examined  by  Judge 
Owens '  experts  was  above  or  under  4,000. 

James  S.  Keeley: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2575  General  manager  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  as  he  was  in 
1911.  Has  a  copy  of  the  Marriott  affidavit  and  his  at- 
tention is  called  to  the  following  statements  said  therein 
to  have  been  made  by  Mr.  Gray,  chief  of  police  of  Ot- 
tumwa,  Iowa. 

Mr.  Deneejst  (reading).  "Barr  told  the  city  that  he 
had  paid  big  money  to  get  the  contract,  but  that  the  mis- 
take he  made  was  not  to  give  $50,000  to  Jim  Keeley,  the 
publisher  of  the  Tribune.  Barr  said  that  Keeley  de- 
manded $50,000,  but  he  refused  to  pay  him,  that  if  he 
had  got  that  there  would  not  have  been  any  of  this  trou- 
ble with  the  voting  machine  contract;  that  the  Tribune 
and  the  other  papers  were  always  for  the  voting  ma- 
chine and  they  would  not  have  thought  of  fighting  a  con- 
tract; and  would  not  have  started  the  trouble  if  we  had 
not  refused  Mr.  Keeley 's  demand  for  $50,000." 

"Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Harry  Barr?  A.  Until  yes- 
terday afternoon  I  was  under  the  impression  I  had  never 
met  him ;  I  met  him  once. 

* '  Q.  Do  you  remember  when,  Mr.  Keeley  ?  A.  Either 
last  November  or  last  spring.  I  did  not  know  who  it  was 
at  that  time,  and  I  did  not  know  his  identity  until  yes- 
terday afternoon. 

"Q.  Yesterday  afternoon?  A.  Now,  to  the  best  of 
my  knowledge  and  belief  that  is  the  only  time  I  have  ever 
seen  Mr.  Barr  or  ever  had  any  conversation  with  him. 

"The  Chairman.  If  you  will  just  face  around  this 
way,  Mr.  Keeley — we  cannot  hear  you. 

"The  Witness.     Supposing  I  stand  up.    I  say,  until 


Testimony  of  J.  S.  Keeley.  533 

yesterday  afternoon,  I  was  under  the  impression  I  had 
never  seen  Mr.  Barr,  that  I  had  never  talked  with  him. 
Yesterday  afternoon,  however,  I  learned  that  I  had  seen 
the  man  and  that  I  had  talked  with  him;  that  was  either 
last  November  or  last  spring,  I  have  forgotten  which. 
It  was  the  night  of  an  election  wlien  I  talked  to  the  man. 
I  did  not  know  who  he  was  and  he  did  not  know  who  I 
was.  I  did  not  know  it  was  Mr.  Barr  until  yesterday 
afternoon. 

"Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  discuss  with  Mr.  Barr  or 
anybody  representing  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany the  matter  of  receiving  money  or  taking  money  for 
supporting  or  withdrawing  opposition  to  any  contract 
they  may  have  had  with  the  city?  A.  I  never  discussed 
that  matter  with  Mr.  Barr  or  any  other  human  being,  or 
any  other  matter  similar  to  that. 

"Q.  You  don't  know  Mr.  Gray,  I  suppose,  Thomas 
S.  Gray,  ex-chief  of  police —    A.    Not  so  far  as  I  know. 

2577  Q.     Of  Ottumwa?    A.    Not  so  far  as  I  know. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  named  Newton  Arrison,  for- 
mer city  clerk  of  Ottumwa?    A.    Never  heard  of  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Thomas  H.  Pickler,  who  was  former 
mayor!    A.    Never  heard  of  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  lawyer,  Edward  G.  Moon,  former 
State  Senator  and  former  police  magistrate  of  Ottumwa? 
A.     Never  heard  of  him. 

Q.  Or  Mr.  Gilmore,  his  partner  of  Ottumwa?  A. 
Never  heard  of  him. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  about  any  charges  having  been 
made  against  you  or  the  Tribune,  or  anybody  connected 
with  it  in  reference  to  this  contract  of  a  financial  na- 
ture?    A.     No,  sir. 

Mr.  Deneen.    That  is  all. 

The  Witness,  May  I  amplify  that  statement  just 
made? 

Mr.  Deneen.    Certainly. 

The  Witness.  I  got  back  from  Europe  on  Saturday 
morning.  I  first  learned  of  this  story  about  half  an  hour 
after  I  landed.  I  racked  my  mind  to  try  and  determine 
whether  I  had  seen  this  man.  I  see  hundreds  of  people 
in  the  course  of  a  year.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  to 
the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  never  saw  that  man  and 
never  talked  with  him  and  would  not  have  kno\vn  him  if 
he  had  walked  into  my  room  or  into  this  room;  yester- 

2578  day,  however,  I  went   into    our   local    room    and    Mr. 


534  Meeting  With  Bart: 

Hewitt,  the  reporter  who  wrote  a  number  of  stories  on 
that  voting  machine  proposition,  was  sitting  there  and  I 
said,  "What  kind  of  a  looking  fellow  is  this  man  Barr! 
I  don't  believe  I  ever  saw  him."  And  Hewitt  retorted: 
that  he  wanted  to  see  you  once.  "Well,  I  said,  "under 
what  circumstances?"  And  Mr.  Hewdtt  said  that  after 
definite  action  or  the  first  definite  action  had  been  taken 
by  the  Election  Commissioners  in  connection  with  the 
voting  machines,  when  they  had  taken  some  action  that 
was  regarded  as  practically  making  a  contract,  that  Barr 
and  another  man  whose  name  I  had  forgotten,  came  up 
to  see  Hewitt  in  the  Tribune  office,  and  that  they  were 
feeling  pretty  good  and  that  they  "joshed"  Hewitt  and 
said,  "Well,  we  licked  you,"  and  they  talked  back  and 
forward  a  few  minutes  and  finally  Barr  said  to  Mr. 
Hewitt,  "I  would  like  to  meet;  Mr.  Keeley  one  of  these 
days,  I  would  like  to  go  in  and  see  him."  Hewitt  re- 
plied, "Well,  that  is  what  everybody  wants  who  comes 
up  here,  but  very  few  get  in."  That  was  the  end  of  the 
conversation.  Mind  you,  gentlemen,  this  was  after  the 
contract  w^as  awarded  that  he  met  me,  wanted  to  see  me. 

Mr.  Thomason.  You  might  explain  the  circumstances 
of  the  meeting  which  you  did  have  with  Mr.  Barr. 

A.     Oh,  yes,  the  only  recollection  I  have  of  meeting, 

2579  connected  in  any  way  with  the  voting  machine  question 
was  on  a  certain  night — the  night  of  an  election — 
whether  it  was  a  primary  or  otherwise,  I  don't  remem- 
ber, whether  it  was  last  spring  or  last  fall,  I  don't  re- 
member, but  I  know  it  was  of  comparatively  recent  oc- 
currence, I  was  walking  through  the  room  of  Mr.  Beck, 
the  managing  editor,  and  there  were  two  gentlemen  sit- 
ting at  his  table  and  I  heard  them  ask  him  to  do  some- 

2580  thing  in  connecting  with  voting  machines.  Well,  I  stood 
to  one  side  and  listened,  and  the  proposition  they  put  up 
was  this:  that  they  would  like  the  Tribune  to  say  the 
next  morning  that  the  returns  came  in  infinitely  more 
quickly  from  the  voting  machine  precincts  than  they  did 
from  any  other  precincts.  They  wanted  us  to  specify 
what  precincts  brought  in  the  returns  first,  and  what 
hour.  I  then  broke  into  the  conversation  and  I  said  it 
was  impossible  to  do  that  for  this  reason:  that  we  re- 
ceived our  preliminary  figures  from  the  City  News  Bu- 
reau and  they  always  came  in  the  forms  of  bulletins 
which  read  something  like  this:  "Fifty-seven  precincts 
out  of  thirteen  hundred  or  so,  give  so-and-so  so  much, 


Testimony  of  J.  8.  Keeley.  535 

and  give  so-and-so  so  much  and  so-and-so  so  much."  That 
there  was  no  way  of  locating  those  precincts  and 
from  what  ward  those  returns  came.  It  was  just  a 
group,  a  bunch,  we  will  say,  of  the  first  fifty-seven  that 

2580  came  in.  Of  course,  some  might  have  been  voting  ma- 
chine precincts  and  some  might  have  been  others.  I 
pointed  out  that  fact  to  those  gentlemen  and  they  saw  the 
point  at  once.  We  had  two  or  three  minutes'  general 
conversation,  very  pleasant  conversation,  and  I  walked 
out  of  the  room.  I  learned  yesterday  afternoon  that  one 
of  those  gentlemen  was  Mr.  Barr. 

Rep.  King.     Who  informed  you  that  was  Mr.  Barr? 
A.     Mr.  Beck. 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  believe  that  is  all  I  care  to  ask  Mr. 
Keeley. 

2581  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Mitchell. 

It  is  not  a  fact  that  "the  Tribune  had  always  advo- 
cated voting  machines  until  Judge  Owens  became  County 
Judge. ' ' 

2582  "The  Tribune  did  believe  in  voting  machines.  It 
did  not  believe  in  this  voting  machine  deal." 

2583  The  Tribune  opposed  the  deal  because  it  did  not  be- 
lieve it  was  a  square  deal. 

The  Tribune's  suspicion  did  not  come  from  Mr.  An- 
thony Czarnecki  and  the  witness  cannot  state  where  the 
Tribune  got  information  which  led  to  its  suspicion. 

2584  The  witness  did  not  suspect  Mr.  Anthony  Czarnecki, 
Dr.  Taylor  or  Mr.  Kellermann.  It  suspected  th6  voting 
machine  company. 

2585  "Mr.  Deneen.  Do  you  care  to  ask  him  any  questions, 
Mr.  Walker? 

"Mr.  Walkeb.  Certainly  not.  I  want  to  say  that  this 
shows  the  folly  of  hearsay  all  of  the  time.  I  believe  what 
Mr.  Keeley  says." 

The  witness  read  the  news  about  the  bids,  specifica- 
tions, and  so  forth,  before  the  contract  was  consummated 
and  gathered  his  opinions  from  them  and  statements  that 
came  to  him  from  reporters  and  others. 

2586  "Rep.  King.  You  absolve  Mr.  Keeley  from  this 
charge ! 

"Mr.  Walker.  I  say  that  this  simply  shows  the  value 
of  putting  hearsay  on  hearsay  in  evidence.     If  I  was 


k 


536  Testimony  of  0.  Heivitt. 

on  this  committee  I  would  find  that  what  Barr  said  that 
he  ever  said — if  he  ever  said  it — about  Mr.  Keeley,  was 
not  true.    Of  course — 

"Eep.  King.     Barr  is  a  liar  then? 

"Mr.  Walkee.  That  is  what  I  would  find.  As  far  as 
any  inference  or  any  reflection  upon  Mr.  Keeley,  or  upon 
anybody  else,  based  on  hearsay. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  Do  you  mean  to  say  whether  Barr  mis- 
stated the  truth,  or  the  affiant,  Mr.  Marriott  misstated  it, 
his  client? 

"Mr.  Walker.  As  I  understand  it,  Mr.  Marriott's  af- 
fidavit said  that  they  believed  that  Barr  said  it. 

' '  The  Witness.  I  think  we  will  demonstrate  that  they 
did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  wish  to  present  a  defense 
against  the  accuracy  of  the  statements  in  this  affidavit? 

"A.  Yes,  I  wish  to  present  Mr.  Hewitt,  Mr.  Beck  and 
Mr.  Gotthart." 


Oscar  Hewitt  : 

2587  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Thomason. 

A  newspaper  reporter  employed  by  the  Chicago  Trib- 
une. Knows  Mr.  Barr  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company. 

Witness  does  not  think  he  ever  met  and  talked  with  Mr. 
Barr  in  Mr.  Keeley 's  presence. 

Witness  met  Mr.  Barr  once  two  or  three  weeks  subse- 
quent to  the  awarding  of  the  voting  machine  contract  in 
the  office  of  the  Chicago  Tribune.  Mr.  Barr  said  he 
would  like  to  meet  Mr.  Keeley. 

"I  said,  'Well,  nearly  everyone  that  comes  in  wants 
to  see  Mr.  Keeley,'  but  he  says,  'Not  now;  sometime  I 
would  like  to  meet  him. ' 

2588  "Q.  Did  he  state  at  that  time  whether  or  not  he  had 
ever  met  him  before?    A.    No,  he  did  not. 

"Q.     He  stated  he  would  like  to  meet  him?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  That  was  after  the  contract  had  been  awarded? 
A.  That  is  after  the  resolution  had  been  passed  say- 
ing that  the  board  would  award  a  contract." 

Mr.  ]3arr  asked  to  be  introduced  to  Mr.  Keeley. 

2589  This  was  after  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
passed  the  resolution  to  purchase  the  voting  machines 
along  about  the  1st  of  July. 


Testimony  of  E.  S.  Beck.  537 

"Witness  fixes  the  time  of  meeting  Mr.  Barr  in  the  Trib- 
une office  by  the  circumstance  that  Mr.  Barr  was  "jolly- 
ing around  about  having  licked  me"  by  winning  the 
award  over  the  other  voting  machines. 


E.  S.  Beck  : 

2591  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Thomason. 

Managing  editor  of  the  Chicago  Tribune.  Met  Mr. 
Barr  on  one  occasion  only.  Witness  thinks  it  was  the 
Monday  before  election  last  November. 

"Q.  Who  was  present  at  that  time?  A.  Well,  Mr. 
Barr  and  a  gentleman  who,  I  think,  was  Mr.  Lausterer, 
came  up  to  the  office,  possibly  between  four  and  five 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  sent  word  in  by  the  stenog- 
rapher that  they  wanted  to  see  me  on  business,  and  I 
asked  them  to  come  in  and  they  came  into  the  room.  They 
very  politely  suggested  that  in  connection  with  our  re- 
port of  the  election  returns  it  would  be  a  proper  thing 
to  mention  that  the  first  returns  were  received  from  the 
voting  machine  precincts,  or  by  way  of  the  voting  ma- 
chines, or  from  the  counts  made  on  voting  machines.  They 
had  suggested  this  when  Mr.  Keeley  came  in  the  room ;  in 
passing  through  from  his  room  into  the  local  room  he 
ordinarily  passes  through  my  room. 

"Q.  The  passageway  goes  through  your  room,  does 
it?  A.  The  passageway  from  his  room  through  the  li- 
brary into  my  room  on  into  the  local  room,  and  he  was 
passing  through  merely  casually  and  the  conversation 
attracted  him  as  it  naturally  would,  and  he  stopped  to 
listen  to  what  their  suggestion  was,  and  having  heard 
it,  before  I  said  anything  as  to  what  we  could  do,  he 
called  their  attention  to  the  fact  which  appealed  to  them 
as  correct,  I  believe,  from  their  action,  that  the  City 
Press  or  the  City  News  Bureau  in  its  returns  sends  the 
results  in  by — in  bunches  of  five  precincts.  For  exam- 
ple, the  first  five  precincts,  and  then  jump,  the  first  ten, 
and  then  the  first  twenty,  and  accumulate  in  that  way, 
gives  so-and-so  for  Wilson,  so-and-so  for  Taft  and  Roose- 
velt, and  he  called  their  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  re- 
turns as  collected  by  the  City  News  Bureau  did  not  spec- 
ify whether  they  were  voting  machine  returns  or  paper 
ballot  returns. 


538  Testimony  of  E.  S.  Beck. 

"Q.  Yes.  A.  And  then  we  both  remarked  that  it 
would  hardly  be  feasible  to  make  this  statement,  and  in 
that  way  they — I  don't  recall  any  further  conversation, 
and  they  went  on  out.  The  only  time  I  ever  saw  either 
of  them. 

"Q.  Did  either  of  the  men  give  any  evidence  of  rec- 
ognition of  Mr.  Keeley?  A.  They  did  not,  I  am  posi- 
tive they  did  not  know  Mr.  Keeley.  When  he  came  in  I 
don 't  think  his  name  was  mentioned,  he  just  dropped  into 
the  conversation,  they  did  not  know  my  name,  except  I 
was  managing  editor,  he  just  came  in  and  stood  by  the 
desk,  by  the  files  by  the  desk. 

"Q.  Did  neither  of  them  speak  to  Mr.  Keeley  when 
he  came  in?    A.    No,  sir,  he  didn't  know  them. 

"Q.  Give  any  recognition  of  them  at  all?  A.  No,  sir, 
just  heard  the  subject  of  voting  machines. 

"Q.  He  did  not  speak  to  them?  A.  No,  sir,  just 
came  into  the  conversation  in  that  casual  way,  not  any 
introduction  on  either  side. 

"Q.  You  are  positive  that  was  last  fall?  A.  I  am 
positive  it  was  the  day  before  election. 

"Q.  That  is  all.  A.  I  remember,  then,  or  I  remem- 
ber now,  that  there  had  been  some  test  or  trial  of  voting 
machines  on  two  or  three  occasions  before  that ;  so  I  am 
positive  it  was  last  November.  I  don't  think  it  was  elec- 
tion day,  I  think  it  was  the  day  before,  because  at  four 
o'clock  on  election  day  we  were  all  very  busy  on  our  tab- 
ular work.    My  recollection  is  that  it  was  Monday." 

"The  Chairman.  Was  your  business  manager  ever 
approached  by  any  agent  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company  for  the  purpose  of  inserting  ads  in  your  paper, 
supporting  the  Empire  voting  machine  deal? 

"A.  Not  that  I  know  of.  It  would  not  be  natural  for 
me  to  hear  anything  about  it.  I  do  not  see  him  very 
often.    I  don't  know  anything  about  that  end  of  the  office. 

' '  The  Chairman.  Information  came  in  an  indirect  way 
to  the  Chairman,  that  various  papers  had  been  ap- 
proached to  buy  advertising  space,  the  gentlemen  ap- 
proaching the  paper  thereby  hoping  to  obtain — 

"Mr.  Thomason.  I  will  advise  the  committee  that  the 
business  manager  of  the  Tribune  has  something  along 
that  line. 

"Mr.  Keeley.  I  had  something  in  mind  in  connection 
with  that." 


Testimony  of  C.  Gotthart.  539 

Afternoon  Session. 
Tuesday,  August  19,  1913. 

Charles  Gotthart  : 
2596  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Reporter  for  the  Chicago  Tribune.  Witness  was  in  Ot- 
tumwa,  Iowa,  from  August  15th  to  August  18th  last.  Is 
familiar  with  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Marriott. 

"Q.  While  you  were  in  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  did  you  see 
John  W.  Gray,  whose  name  was  mentioned  in  that  affi- 
davit?   A.    I  did. 

"Q.  Who  is  he!  A.  He  is  former  police  chief,  who 
is  now  in  the  private  detective  business. 

"  Q.  I  will  direct  your  attention  to  a  paragraph  in  the 
affidavit,  'I,  Edward  E.  Marriott,'  reading  as  follows, 
referring  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Gray,  the  claimant's 
statement  of  Mr.  Gray  to  Mr.  Marriott,  'Barr  told  us 
that  he  had  paid  big  money  to  get  the  contract,  that  the 
big  mistake  he  made  was  not  to  give  $50,000  to  Jim 
Keeley,  the  publisher  of  the  Tribune.  Barr  said  that 
Jim  Keeley  demanded  $50,000  but  we  refused  to  pay 
him  if  he  had  got  that  there  would  not  have  been  any  of 
this  trouble  with  the  voting  machine  contract.  The  Trib- 
une and  all  other  papers  had  been  for  voting  machines, 
and  they  would  never  have  thought  of  fighting  the  con- 
tract if  the  Tribune  had  not  started  the  trouble  when  we 
refused  Keeley 's  demand  for  $50,000.'  What  did  Mr. 
Gray  say  to  you  in  reference  to  the  statement  attributed 
to  him  in  the  affidavit  ?    A.    Mr.  Gray  said  that  he  never — 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  When  was  the  time  you  were  in  Ot- 
tumwa? 

"A.  Friday.  I  got  home  this  morning.  Last  Friday. 
I  went  down  on  the  eleven  o'clock  train. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  wish  to  reserve  an  objection  on  the 
ground  it  is  hearsay. 

"The  Chairman.     The  objection  may  be  entered,  the 
witness  may  answer  the  question. 
2598     "Mr.  Thomason.    Answer  the  question. 

"A.  Mr.  Gray  told  me  that  he  never  knew  there  was 
such  a  man  as  Jim  Keeley  until  he  saw  it  set  forth  in  the 
affidavit,  that  was  presented  to  him  by  our  correspondent 
there  on  Thursday  afternoon. 

"Q.    What  did  Mr.  Gray  say  with  reference  to  the 


540  Arrison's  Comment  on  Marriott  Affidavit. 

entire  statement  attributed  to  him  in  the  affidavit  of 
Marriott?  A.  He  said  it  was  a  pack  of  lies;  that  Mar- 
riott was  drunk,  and  that  the  only  thing  that  he  gave 
Marriott  was  an  affidavit  that  Marriott  brought  back  to 
Chicago  on  the  Saturday,  I  believe,  the  9th,  I  believe  it 
was,  and  that  was  to  the  effect  that  he  had  known  Mr. 
Barr  for  five  years,  and  that  he  and  Pickler  and  Arrison, 
for  compensation  agreed  to  bring  Mr.  Barr  and  Charles 
A.    Walsh  together." 

Q.  How  many  times  did  you  talk  to  Mr.  Gray?  A. 
Oh,  four  or  five. 

Q.     On  different  days?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where?  A.  In  his  office,  on  the  street,  and  at  the 
Laclede  Hotel. 

Q.  While  you  were  in  Ottumwa  did  you  talk  to  New- 
ton M.  Arrison?    A.    Newton  L.  Arrison. 

Q.     Newton  L.  Arrison?    A.    Yes. 

Q.     Who  is  he?    A.    He  is  ex-city  clerk. 

Q.  He  has  attributed  the  statement — the  statement  is 
attributed  to  him  in  the  affidavit  of  Marriott,  that  "if  it 
wasn't  for  my  friendship  for  Barr,  and  my  love  of  fair 
play,  I  could  hardly  resist  the  offers  of  big  money  that 
are  made  by  Deneen  and  others  to  any  of  us  fellows  who 
will  go  to  Chicago  and  back  up  the  things  put  forth  in 
that  paper  that  Duke  gave  to  Boyer."  Did  you  question 
him  in  reference  to  this  statement  attributed  to  him?  A. 
I  did. 

He  said  he  didn't  know — that  Deneen  and  Butts 
offered  to  buy  the  contract  at  the  face  value  and  pay  their 
expenses  if  they  would  testify. 

Q.  Did  he  say  he  was  to  get  any  other  money  of  any 
kind?    A.     No,  sir. 

Mr.  McEwEN.  I  want  to  save  an  objection  to  all  of 
these  Ottumwa  interviews,  as  being  hearsay  and  I  want 
my  objection  noted  so  I  may  argue,  if  we  ever  get  to 
argue  that  evidence. 

The  Chairman.     The  objection  may  be  noted. 

Mr.  Thomason.  It  is  understood  it  goes  to  all  of  this 
testimony? 

Mr.  McEwEN.    Yes. 

Mr.  Thomason.  Q.  What  did  Mr.  Arrison  say  with 
reference  to  his  relations  with  Mr.  Marriott,  when  Mar- 
riott was  in  Ottumwa? 

A.  He  said  he  refused  to  talk  to  Marriott  and  that 
2600  he  could  confirm  that  by  Judge  Moon,  the  local  counsel 


Judge  Moon  on  Marriott  Affidavit.  541 

for  W.  H.  Barr,  Mr.  Moon  did  confirm  it  so  far  as  it  re- 
lated to  an  independent  conversation,  for  he  said  Mar- 
riott was  there  with  a  little  yellow  pad,  and  fired  various 
questions  at  Arrison  and  Arrison  kept  saying,  ' '  Go  away 
from  me;  I  don't  want  to  talk  to  you,"  and  he  finally 
asked  some  simple  questions  as,  "Do  you  know  Mr.  Law- 
rence!" and  "When  have  you  seen  Mr.  Lawrence?"  and 
Judge  Moon  said,  "Go  ahead  and  answer  those  ques- 
tions, it  is  all  right." 

Q.  He  answered  nothing  else !  A.  No,  sir,  he  said  he 
didn't  know  there  was  such  a  man  as  Brennan,  for  in- 
stance. 

Q.  While  you  were  in  Ottumwa  did  you  talk  to  Albert 
S.  Moon?    A.    I  did. 

Q.  Who  is  he?  A.  He  is  ex-State  Senator.  He  was 
magistrate  when  Arrison  was  city  clerk  and  Pickler 
mayor. 

Q.  In  the  affidavit  it  is  stated,  "Barr  said  to  him, 
*  Moon,  the  mistake  we  made  was  when  we  refused  to  give 
Keeley  of  the  Tribune  the  $50,000  that  he  asked,  and 
then  he  would  never  have  made  this  fight  against  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  contract  in  Chicago,'  "  did  you 
question  Moon  in  reference  to  that?  A.  I  did.  Mr. 
Moon  said  that  he  had  never  given  any  news  to  news- 
paper men  and  he  made  no  exception  to  that  in  the  case 
of  Marriott.  He  said,  "I  have  seen  the  statement,  and 
I  think  that  I  ought  to  make  a  statement  on  that."  As 
2601  a  matter  of  fact  he  telegraphed  to  Chicago  as  to  whether 
he  should  make  a  statement  and  then  he  gave  me  a  signed 
statement  that  he  had  never  mentioned  it. 

Q.  Just  a  minute.  Have  you  that  statement?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  sign  it?  A.  I  did  not  see  him 
sign  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  is  in  his  handwriting? 
A.  It  is,  he  showed  it  to  me  and  showed  it  to  our  cor- 
respondent, and  Gray  knew  about  it,  because  he  told 
them. 

Mr.  Thomason.  I  desire  to  offer  this  statement  of  Mr. 
Moon  to  the  committee  and  ask  it  be  read  into  the  record. 

The  same  objection? 

Mr.  McEwEN.  It  is  the  same  as  published  in  the  Trib- 
une? 

Mr.  Thomason.    Yes,  I  think  so. 


542  The  Moon  Statement. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  the  same  statement  as  made  to 
the  chairman  of  this  committee. 

Mr.  Walker.  May  I  see  it !  I  have  not  seen  this  state- 
ment, or  any  account  of  it,  I  being  away  from  town. 

The  Chairman.    Certainly. 

Mr.  McEwEN.    It  is  the  same  statement? 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Whittaker,  please  read  it  into 
the  record. 

(Mr.  "Whittaker  reads  Mr.  Moon's  statement,  as  fol- 
lows) : 

Exhibit  I. 

It  is  not  my  custom  to  discuss  the  affairs  of  a  client 
with  newspaper  men.  I  have  not  made  an  exception  to 
this  rule  in  Mr.  Marriott's  case.  I  did  not  say  to  Mr. 
Marriott  that  Mr.  Arrison  and  Mr.  Gray  had  told  me 
that  Mr.  Barr  said  to  them  that  it  would  cost  a  big  sum 
to  get  the  Chicago  voting  machine  contract.  I  did  not  say 
to  Mr.  Marriott  that  Mr.  Barr  had  told  me  and  my  law 
partner  that  Mr.  Barr  said:  "A  mistake  was  made  when 
we  refused  to  give  Jim  Keeley  of  the  Tribune,  the  $50,000 
that  he  asked."  I  did  not  say  to  Mr.  Marriott  that  Mr. 
Deneen  and  other  politicians  had  $15,000  to  spend  to  get 

2602  the  testimony  of  these  men  in  Ottumwa.  I  did  not  say 
to  Mr.  Marriott  that  the  Tribune  was  willing  to  come 
across  with  a  few  thousand  more.  Such  matters  as  I 
have  received  from  Mr.  Barr  or  any  other  clients  are 
held  by  me  in  confidence  and  under  the  obligations  of 
an  attorney. 

The  Moon  letter  is  marked  "Keeley  Exhibit  10  of  Au- 
gust 19,  1911." 

2604  "The  Chairman.  Eight  at  this  juncture  I  might  say 
for  the  information  of  the  committee  here  and  for  the 
record  that  the  chairman,  by  direction  of  the  committee 
wired  to  Mr.  Pickler  and  Arrison  and  Gray  and  Duke  at 
Ottumwa  and  also  wrote  letters  to  Mr.  Gillmore  and 
Moon  and  wired  them  likewise  to  be  present  here  this 
morning  at  9:30  and  have  here  a  letter  from  Mr.  Moon 
which  I  shall  read  into  the  record,  if  there  is  no  objection 
on  the  part  of  the  Commission  at  this  time  (reading) : 


Testimony  of  C.  Gotthart.  543 

"  'Exhibit  I. 

Ottumwa,  Iowa,  Aug.  16,  1913. 
Hon.  Lucas  I.  Butts, 

Chairman  Investigating  Committee, 
Chicago,  Illinois. 
Dear  Sir: 

In  reply  to  your  telegram  of  the  ISth  inst.,  I  beg  to  say 
that  I  have  already  given  to  the  press  a  statement  with 
reference  to  the  Harriot  affidavit.  I  am  enclosing  here- 
with a  duplicate  of  same  signed  by  me.  I  trust  that  your 
committee  will  appreciate  the  fact  that,  as  an  attorney 
for  Mr.  Barr  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Co.,  I  am 
not  at  liberty  to  speak  as  freely  as  though  no  such  rela- 
tion existed.  I  believe  that  my  statement  includes  all  of 
the  things  that  I  can  properly  say  and  believe  that  on 
reading  same  you  will  come  to  a  like  conclusion. 

Your  telegi'am  to  Mr.  Gilmore  is  also  received.  Mr. 
Gilmore  has  been  absent  on  his  vacation  for  more  than 
two  weeks  and  I  cannot  say  exactly  when  he  will  return. 
You  will,  of  course,  understand  that  his  relations  to  Mr. 
Barr  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Co.  are  those  of 
attorney  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  would  view  the  mat- 
ter as  I  do. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)    E.  G.  Moon.'  " 

**  'Keeley  Exhibit  I. 

2605  It  is  not  my  custom  to  discuss  the  affairs  of  a  client  with 
newspaper  men.  I  have  not  made  an  exception  to  this 
rule  in  Mr.  Marriott's  case.  I  did  not  say  to  Mr.  Mar- 
riott that  Mr.  Arrison  and  Mr.  Gray  had  told  me  that  Mr. 
Barr  said  to  them  that  it  would  cost  a  big  sum  to  get 
the  Chicago  voting  machine  contract.  I  did  not  say  to 
Mr.  Marriott  that  Mr.  Barr  had  told  me  and  my  law 
partner  the  same  story.  I  did  not  say  to  Mr.  Marriott 
that  Mr.  Barr  said:  "A  mistake  was  made  when  we  re- 
fused to  give  Jim  Keeley,  of  the  Tribune,  the  $50,000  that 
he  asked."  I  did  not  say  to  Mr.  Marriott  that  Mr.  De- 
neen  and  other  politicians  had  $15,000  to  spend  to  get  the 
testimony  of  those  men  in  Ottumwa.  I  did  not  say  to  Mr. 
Marriott  that  the  Tribune  was  willing  to  come  across  with 
a  few  thousand  more.    Such  matters  as  I  have  received 


544  Witness  Talks  With  Judge  Moon. 

from  Mr.  Barr  or  any  other  clients  are  held  by  me  in 
confidence  and  under  the  obligations  of  an  attorney. 

(Signed)    E.  G.  Moon.'  " 

2605%  Accompanying  the  letter  was  a  duplicate  of  the  Moon 
sfatement  previously  read  and  marked  here  "Exhibit  10, 
of  August  19,  1913." 

"Mr.  Thomason.  In  the  affidavit  of  Edward  E.  Mar- 
riott there  is  attributed  to  Mr.  Moon,  by  Mr.  Marriott, 
this  statement,  'Deneen  told  Arrison  and  Gray  that  if 
they  would  testify  in  Chicago,  he,  Deneen,  would  assume 
the  one  thousand  dollar  payment,  promised  by  the  Em- 
pire Company,  and  pay  them  lots  of  money  besides.  De- 
neen, Butts  and  the  other  politicians  have  fifteen  thou- 
sand dollars  to  spend  to  get  the  testimony  of  these  men 
and  the  Chicago  Tribune  is  ready  to  come  across  with  a 
few  thousands.'  Did  you  talk  to  Mr.  Moon  with  refer- 
ence to  that  statement  attributed  to  him? 

"A.  I  am  not  certain  whether  I  did  on  that  para- 
graph or  not. 

2606  Q.  You  are  not  certain?  A.  No,  sir,  I  had  to  Ar- 
rison. 

Q.     I  beg  your  pardon?    A.    I  had  to  Arrison. 

Q.  This  is  with  reference  to  Moon?  A.  Well,  no, 
that  part  of  the  money  from  the  Tribune  that  is  covered 
in  his  statement,  see? 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Moon  make  any  statement  in  reference  to 
Mr.  Marriott?  A.  Yes,  sir,  like  Gray  and  Arrison  and 
all  the  rest,  he  said  Marriott  was  drunk. 

Q.     When?    A.    All  of  the  while  he  was  there. 

Q.     Where?    A.    In  Ottumwa. 

Mr.  Thomason.    That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Does  Counsel  wish  to  ask  the  witness 
questions?     (No  response.) 

The  Chairman.     Any  of  the  Commissioners? 

Sen.  Canaday.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman,  did 
these  men  give  any  reason  why  they  would  not  come  be- 
fore the  sub-committee  while  they  were  up  there? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  they  were  interfered  with. 

2607  Q.    They  were  interfered  with?    A.    Yes. 
Q.    In  what  way? 

Mr.  Thomason.    State  to  the  Commission  anything  you 
know. 
2607     "A.    Well,  Newt  Arrison  said  that  he  would  come,  I 
invited  them,  and  Newt  Arrison  said  that  he  could  come. 


Why  Arrison  and  Duke  Avoided  Chicago.  545 

if  it  became  a  matter  of  self-protection,  but  he  talked 
about  sluggers  in  Chicago ;  so  did  Duke,  and  Arrison  said 
that  Marriott  told  them  and  also  another  man  told  them, 
if  he  came  to  Chicago  he  would  be  subjected  to  Mr.  Walk- 
er's brutality  and  his  merciless  cross-examination,  and 
he  would  be  kodaked  and  misrepresented  in  the  newspa- 
pers and  would  be  liable  to  be  slugged  before  he  came 
back. 

"Sen.  Canaday.  He  considered  it  a  very  dangerous 
place  to  be,  in  Chicago? 

"A.     Sir? 

"Q.  He  considered  it  a  very  dangerous  place  to  be,  in 
Chicago,  then?  A.  He  seemed  to  think  so;  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  they  are  satisfied  now  that  they  have  got  their 
money,  that  is  all  they  are  interested  in;  they  don't  care 
for  the  committee. 

"Q.  I  was  simply  wanting  to  know  why  they  would 
tell  individuals  their  story  but  would  not  come  before 
the  Commission,  that  is  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at.  A.  I 
beg  your  pardon? 

"Q.  I  am  trying — simply  wanting  to  know  why  they 
would  tell  their  story  to  individuals  who  went  there,  but 
would  not  come  before  the  committee  and  testify.     A. 

2608  Well,  your  wire  to  Pickler — now  Pickler  was  in  the  West 
Hotel  in  Sioux  City,  until  this  morning,  when  he  went  to 
Omaha.  When  Mrs.  Pickler  got  the  wire,  she  called  Ar- 
rison and  he  said  just  put  it  in  an  envelope  and  he  will 
get  it  soon  enough.  Arrison  laughed  about  the  thing,  and 
Gray  talked  about  the  thing.  Moon  controls  the  situa- 
tion. They  all  figure  that  Barr  is  a  good  fellow  and  what 
is  the  use  of  getting  anybody  in  wrong;  they  laugh  about 
this  Keeley  thing,  they  simply  say  that  is  a  counter-irri- 
tant, there  is  nothing  in  any  of  it,  that  is  all  they  think. 

"Q.  How  did  they  get  this  information  that  they 
would  be  liable  to  be  slugged  in  Chicago?  A.  Well,  that 
was  talked  to  them  by  somebody  down  there  whom  they 
would  not  name,  Marriott  told  Arrison,  he  said,  and  also 
said  that  Bill  Roberts,  the  labor  reporter  on  the  Exam- 
iner, told  them  all  about  Mr.  Walker  and  how  merciless 
he  was  on  cross-examination,  and  would  make  monkeys 
out  of  them. 

2609  "Q.  And  would  be  allowed  to  be  slugged  if  they  come 
up  here? 

"Mr.  Walker.     Who?     By  me? 
'A.     They  meant  with  your  tongue. 


( ( 


546  Gray  Gets  His  Money. 


if 


'Mr.  Walker.    On  my  cross-examination  of  them? 
'A.     Yes;  but  they  did  not  call  you  Mr.  Walker,  you 
are  known  as  'Judge  Walker'  all  over  the  town. 

"Sen.  Canaday.    Who  is  Bill  Roberts? 

"A.  He  is  the  labor  reporter  on  the  Examiner.  After 
the  committee  met  on  Monday  night,  and  everybody  went 
home,  this  man,  George  Klein,  he  is  a  bootlegger,  he  has 
the  Laclede  Hotel,  that  seems  to  have  been  made  the  head- 
quarters down  there  by  Marriott,  and  they  said  that  Ar- 
rison  was  coming  before  the  committee  to  testify  Wednes- 
day morning,  so  that  night,  Roberts,  of  the  Examiner, 
came  up. 

' '  Q.  He  came  to  Ottumwa  1  A.  He  came  to  Ottumwa, 
thinking  that  Arrison  was  going  to  come  down;  tirst 
Marriott  phoned  him,  phoned  George  Klein,  asking  him 
to  meet  Roberts  and  present  him  to  Arrison,  that  is  what 
they  told  me. 

"The  Ch.\ihman.  What  was  the  object  of  Roberts' 
trip  to  Ottumwa? 

"Mr.  Walker.    As  they  say? 

"A.  I  inferred  that  they  did  not  want  them  to  come 
down. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  What  place  was  that?  You  say 
Klein's  place? 

"A.    Yes,  the  Laclede. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  don't  know  what  place  it  was,  where 
they  met. 

"Q.     That  is  where  they  sell — where  they  sell  liquor 
illegally,  the  'speak  easy,*'  the  'blind  pig,'  or  the  'boot- 
legger.' _ 
2610    "Rep.  Jayne.    You  say  that  they  were  satisfied  now 
because  they  have  received  their  money? 

"A.    Yes. 

' '  Q.  How  do  you  know  they  have  received  their  money  ? 
A.  I  asked  Gray  that  and  Gray  said  he  was  going  to  be 
a  good  fellow.  He  said  he  was  satisfied.  He  was  going 
to  be  a  good  fellow;  and  I  said,  'Did  you  get  yours? 
Three  hundred  and  thirty-three  and  a  third?'  and  he 
said,  'You're  dam  right  I  did,'  and  I  saw  Newt.  Arrison 
and  I  said,  'Did  you  get  yours?'  and  he  said,  'No,  it  is 
over  there  for  me.    It  is  safe  in  Judge  Moon's  hands.' 

"Q.  You  say  Roberts  arrived  in  Ottumwa?  A.  He 
arrived  in  Ottumwa  at  1 :15,  and  registered  at  the  La- 
clede, at  this  bootlegger's  hotel;  he  stayed  there  Wednes- 
day and  left  Thursday  afternoon  at  1 :35. 


Testimony  of  C.  Gotthart.  547 

"Q.  He  arrived  there  Tuesday?  A.  Part  of  Tuesday- 
night,  at  1 :15  Tuesday  night. 

"Q.  What  time  did  he  leave?  A.  Thursday  after- 
noon, at  1  -.35. 

"Q.  Did  you  say  you  thought  his  purpose  was  to  see 
them  in  going  there?  A.  To  show  these  fellows  they 
did  not  have  to  come,  I  guess. 

"Q.  "What  did  they  tell  you  Roberts  had  said  to  them? 
A.    Just  about  Judge  Walker. 

"Q.    What  did  they  say  about  that?    A.    That  he  had 

2611  a  great  reputation  as  a  cross-examiner,  was  merciless, 
and  would  rip  them  up  one  way  and  another,  and  the 
newspapers  would  kodak  them,  and  that  he  was  liable  to 
get  'slugged,'  that  they  killed  people  in  Chicago  for  $500; 
yes,  and  $50;  that — they  were  'buffaloed'  right,  and  there 
was  no  getting  away  from  that ;  somebody  did  it. 

"Q.  Were  you  in  George  Klein's  place?  A.  I  was, 
yes,  sir,  but  I  did  not  drink.  I  have  not  drank  for  two 
years  and  a  half ;  but  I  was. 

' '  Q.  Were  you— you  were  at  George  Klein 's  place  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir,  yesterday  afternoon,  and  was  just  starting  to 
get  busy  to  write  when  I  was  phoned  to  come  home. 

"Q.  Were  you  in  Wallace  Brothers'  place?  A.  No, 
sir,  I  don't  know  where  Wallace  Brothers'  is. 

"Sen.  Canaday.  I  want  to  know  who  was  going  to  do 
that '  slugging. '  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at.  Was 
some  newspaper  going  to  do  that? 

"A.    Sir? 

"Q.  Did  he  accuse  some  newspaper  of  slugging  for 
$50.    A.    You  are  getting  personal. 

"  Q.  I  would  like  to  know.  A.  No,  sir,  there  was  noth- 
ing mentioned  at  all. 

"Q.  If  that  is  Avhat  they  are  doing,  we  ought  to  know 
about  it.    A.    Duke  told  me  about  somebody  was  warning 

2612  him  not  to  come  to  Chicago. 

"Q.  What  I  would  like  to  know  is,  who  was  going  to  do 
that?  A.  Duke  would  not  tell  me ;  some  local  man  passed 
the  word  to  Duke. 

"Sen.  Landee.  Did  he  give  any  reason  why  he  would 
not  testify  for  the  sub-committee  that  went  to  Ottumwal 

"A.    Pardon  me. 

"Q.  Did  he  give  any  reason  why  he  would  not  testify 
for  the  sub-committee  that  went  to  Ottumwa?  A.  They 
just  thought  that  it  was  not  very  fair ;  they  said  Barr  was 
a  good  fellow.    You  see,  Barr — trying — the  town  has  been 


548  Testimony  of  C.  Gotthart. 

dry  since  July,  a  year  ago,  and  since  Klein  ran  a  saloon 
on  Second  avenue,  across  the  hill  from  the  Courier  office, 
and  Barr  used  to  make  that  his  headquarters  and  used  to 
spend  $20  to  $40  a  day ;  that  is  the  whole  proposition,  this 
whole  proposition  was  talked  over  and  discussed  over, 
every  bit,  but  Klein  also  told  me  that  he  never  heard  of 
Jim  Keeley  or  the  Tribune.  Klein  told  me  that  yesterday 
afternoon.  That  I  remember.  These  fellows,  the  three 
of  them,  have  certificates  of  salesmanship  showing  that 
they  were  duly  authorized  agents,  for  just  such  a  con- 
tingency as  this. 
I  "The  Chairman.    From  whom? 

' '  A.    From  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company. 

"The  Chairman.  They  were  not  afraid  of  being 
'slugged'  in  Ottumwa  if  they  testified,  were  they! 
2613  "A.  No,  sir,  but  I  think  when  the  committee  was  up 
there  they  saw  their  money;  that  is  all,  the  situation  is 
just  this :  That  they  got  the  red  rag  and  shook  it  in  front 
of  the  bull,  and  when  the  flag  is  restored  they  are  going 
to  forget  you  folks. 

'  *  Sen.  Canaday.  They  were  not  afraid  of  being  slugged 
in  Ottumwa  if  they  testified,  were  they! 

"The  Chairman.  He  wants  to  know  if  they  were  afraid 
of  being  slugged  in  Ottumwa  if  they  testified  J)ef ore  the 
sub-committee. 

"A.  No,  sir,  they  were  not  afraid,  but  they  thought  this 
was  a  Chicago  committee  and  Barr  was  a  good  fellow, 
and  they  were  not  going  to  get  Barr  into  trouble. 

"The  Chairman.  The  chairman  was  named  in  this 
affidavit  of  Marriott's,  and  for  that  reason  I  would  like 
to  ask,  while  you  were  in  Ottumwa  interviewing  Pickler, 
Arrison  and  Gray,  did  any  of  those  men  say  that  they 
were  offered  any  more  than  $1,000  and  their  expenses  ! 

/'A.  No,  sir,  they  said  something  about  you  and  Mr. 
Deneen  talking  with  them,  then  I  believe  they  said  they 
had  a  talk  in  the  park.  Gray  and  Arrison  and  Gov.  De- 
neen, and  said  that  you  wanted  to  get  possession  of  that 
contract.  No,  sir,  they  did  not  say  anything  about  any 
big  sum,  but  paying  their  expenses,  and  I  told  them  we 
would  pay  their  expenses  still  if  they  would  come.  I 
don't  know  whether  that  was  right  or  not. 

"The  Chairman.  Any  other  questions  by  the  commit- 
tee? By  the  attorneys!  I  would  like  to  ask  another 
question : 

'  *  Q.    Did  Mr.  Duke  say  anything  to  you  about  whether 


Testimony  of  G.  E.  Brennan.  549 

he  had  been  threatened  in  his  office  at  any  time?  A.  Yes, 
he  said  he  had ;  that  Marriott  threatened  him. 

"Q.  What  did  he  say  to  him?  A.  Well,  there  is  one 
phase  of  the  situation  that  I  was  not  able  to  explain.  I 
did  not  have  time  enough  to  work  on  it.  It  seems  that 
Marriott  went  to  call  on  George  Klein,  the  bootlegger, 
and  the  proprietor  of  the  Laclede  House,  who  took  him 
up  and  introduced  him  to  Duke.  I  don't  know  whether  he 
figured  that  Klein  had  something  on  Duke  or  not,  but 
Klein  introduced  Marriott  to  Duke  and  as  Duke  explained 
to  me,  Marriott  sat  down  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  table 
and  said,  'Now,  you  told  So-and-so,  so-and-so.'  And  Duke 
said,  -I  don't  allow  anybody  to  talk  that  way  to  me,'  and 
Marriott  said,  'You  will  be  disbarred,'  and  Duke  said,  *I 
don't  allow  anybody  to  talk  that  way  to  me.'  I  have  a 
witness  for  this  also,  and  seeing  Klein  going  in  and  intro- 
ducing him,  and  then  Marriott  ran  out  the  door  with 
What 's-his-name  after  him,  and  when  he  got  out  of  the 
door  he  stuck  his  face  back  and  said,  'I  am  going  to  have 
you  disbarred,  anyhow.' 

"Q.  But  who  did  Marriott  say  he  represented,  if  any- 
body! A.  Marriott  said  that  he  represented  to  him  the 
same  as  he  told  Charlie  Walsh  and  everybody  else,  that 
he  was  down  there  as  the  personal  representative  of  Mr. 
Lawrence,  was  not  getting  anything  for  publication,  but 
just  wanted  to  get  the  true  inside  facts,  for  personal  in- 
formation and  not  for  publication. 

"Q.  That  is  the  reason  he  threatened  Duke?  A.  Duke 
tells  me  that  Marriott  had  a  verbatim  copy  of  the  affidavit 
that  was  not  published  until  the  15th,  and  that  is  Duke's 
statement,  that  he  had  it  on  that  Friday,  on  the  8th,  in 
fact,  he  had  it  a  week  ahead,  before  it  was  general  in- 
formation, that  there  was  such  a  statement." 

George  E.  Beennan  : 

2619  "Mr.  Brennan.  I  will  just  make  one — make  a  short 
statement.  My  name  was  used  in  these  affidavits.  I  want 
to  say  that  I  was  not  at  Ottumwa  any  time  in  my  life  or 
any  other  city  in  Iowa.  I  have  passed  there  on  the  train, 
but  I  never  got  off.  I  never  was  on  Iowa  soil  so  I  never 
have  spoken  to  any  of  these  gentlemen.  There  is  not 
anything  else  that  I  care  to  say  except  that  I  don't  know 
any  of  these  gentlemen,  never  met  them,  never  was  in 


550  Testimony  of  E.  E.  Marriott. 

Iowa,  and  I  don't  know  that  I  have  a  great  deal  of  interest 
in  the  case." 


Edward  E.  Mabbiott  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2631    Resides  at  2150  Park  avenue,  Chicago.    Is  a  reporter 
for  the  Examiner,  about  314  years. 

''Q.  Where  were  you  employed  before  three  and  one- 
half  years  ago  ?    A.    New  York. 

"Q.  What  paper?  A.  Why,  the  American  Press  As- 
sociation and  Evening  Mail. 

"Q.    At  the  same  time,  employed  jointly?    A.    No,  sir. 

"Q.  State  your  employer  for  whom,  you  worked  before 
the  Chicago  Examiner?  A.  The  American  Press  Asso- 
ciation. 

' ' Q.    The  American  Press  Association,  New  York  City? 
f        A.    Yes. 

"Q.  For  what  period  were  you  employed  by  that  asso- 
ciation?   A.    About  two  years. 

"Q.  Before  that  where  were  you  employed?  A.  For 
the  Evening  Mail  in  New  York. 

' '  Q.  Just  a  minute,  talk  slower,  the  Evening  Mail,  for 
about  how  long  a  period?    A.    About  two  years. 

"Q.  Before  that  where  were  you  employed?  A.  In 
Philadelphia. 

"Q.    For  what?    A.    On  the  North  American. 

"Q.  The  North  American  in  Philadelphia,  for  how 
long.    A.    Twenty-two  months. 

"Q.  Before  that,  where  were  you  employed?  A.  On 
the  Public  Press  in  Philadelphia. 

"Q.    For  how  long  a  period?    A.    Two  years. 

"Q.    Before  that  where  were  you  employed?    A.    The 
Philadelphia  Record. 
2633    *'Q.    For  how  long?    A.    Three  years. 

"Q.  Before  that,  where  were  you  employed?  A.  The 
New  York  American. 

"Q.  For  how  long  a  period?  A.  Three  and  one-half 
years. 

"Q.  Before  that,  where  were  you  employed?  A.  The 
New  York  World. 

"Q.    For  what  period?    A.    Nine  or  ten  years. 


Witness  Visits  Ottumwa.  551 

"Q.  Before  that,  where  were  you  employed?  A.  The 
New  York  Times. 

"Q.    In  New  York  City?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.    For  how  long  a  time?    A.    About  six  months. 

"Q.  Before  that,  where  were  you  employed?  A.  Why, 
the  Consolidated  Gas  Company  in  New  York. 

"Q.    For  how  long  a  period?    A.    About  three  years. 

"Q.    In  what  capacity?    A.    Stenographer. 

"Q.  Before  that,  where  were  you  employed?  A.  No- 
where." 

2634  Witness  worked  for  the  Philadelphia  Record  for  three 
years.  Witness  was  not  arrested  while  so  employed.  Was 
not  put  in  Moiamensing  Prison  and  was  never  in  jail 
there. 

Witness  was  never  connected  with  the  Betsey  Ross 
Flaghouse  Association.  Witness  knows  a  man  named 
Adams,  but  does  not  remember  any  police  lieutenant 
named  Francis  A.  Adams,  and  was  not  arrested  on  his 
complaint. 

2635  Was  not  charged  with  larceny  and  criminal  libel  on 
June  13th  or  14th,  1901. 

As  a  newspaper  man,  witness  was  interested  in  the 
Betsey  Ross  Association,  but  was  never  connected  with  it. 

Witness  was  never  in  prison  at  any  time  or  anywhere. 

Witness  was  not  discharged  from  the  New  York 
Evening  Journal  for  making  false  expense  accounts.  He 
resigned  from  the  paper. 

2636  Witness  was  employed  by  the  New  York  World,  but 
was  not  discharged  for  stealing  valuable  books  from  the 
library. 

2637  Witness  was  not  discharged  from  the  New  York 
Evening  Journal  for  diverting  free  tickets  which  came  to 
the  paper  and  selling  them. 

Witness  was  not  in  1899  or  1900  charged  with  padding 
the  payrolls  of  the  New  York  Evening  Journal,  and  his 
furniture  was  not  seized  by  the  Evening  Journal  to  reim- 
burse itself. 

Witness  went  to  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  on  August  8th  and 
was  there  the  8th,  9th,  11th  and  12th.  Witness  was  in 
Chicago  on  the  10th. 

2638  Witness  returned  to  Ottumwa  on  the  afternoon  of  the 
10th  in  company  with  Mr.  Frank  Walker,  attorney  for 
Mr.  A.  M.  Lawrence. 

Judge  Moon,  with  whom  wdtness  talked  in  Ottumwa, 
said  he  was  attorney  for  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 


552  Witness  Contradicts  Moon  Statement. 

Company,  and  as  far  as  witness  could  gather,  for  Mr, 
Pickler,  Mr.  Arrison,  and  Mr.  Gray. 

2639  "Q.    Did  you  hear  Judge  Moon's  statement  read  here 
a  little  while  ago?    A.     I  did. 

"Q.  I  will  read  the  statement  as  I  run  along.  (Read- 
ing.) 'It  is  not  my  custom  to  discuss  the  affairs  of  a 
client  with  newspaper  men.  I  have  not  made  an  excep- 
tion to  this  rule  in  Mr.  Marriott's  case.  I  did  not  say  to 
Mr.  Marriott  that  Mr.  Arrison  and  Mr.  Gray  had  told 
me  that  Mr.  Barr  said  to  them  that  it  would  cost  a  big 
sum  to  get  the  Chicago  voting  machine  contract. '  Is  that 
true,  or  do  you  dispute  it?  A.  Mr.  Moon  did  say  to  me 
that  Mr.  Arrison  and  Mr.  Gray  and  Mr.  Pickler  had  said 
to  him  that  a  big  sum  would  have  to  be  paid  to  get  the 
Chicago  voting  machine  contract. 

"Q.  Again  (reading).  'I  did  not  say  to  Mr.  Marriott 
that  Mr.  Barr  had  told  me  and  my  law  partner  the  same 
story.'    Is  that  true  or  false?    A.    It  is  false. 

"Q.  Again  (reading).  'I  did  not  say  to  Mr.  Mar- 
riott that  Mr.  Barr  said,  "A  mistake  was  made  when  we 
refused  to  give  Jim  Keeley  of  the  Tribune  the  $50,000 
that  he  asked."  *  Is  that  true  or  false?    A.    It  is  false. 

"Q.  Continuing  (reading).  'I  did  not  say  to  Mr. 
Marriott  that  Mr.  Deneen  and  other  politicians  had  $15,- 
000  to  spend  to  get  the  testimony  of  these  men  in  Ottum- 
wa.'  Is  that  true  or  false?  A.  He  did  say  that  to  me, 
which  he  there  denies  saying  to  me. 

"Q.  Continuing  (reading).  'I  did  not  say  to  Mr. 
Marriott  that  the  Tribune  was  willing  to  come  across 
with  a  few  thousand  more.'    Is  that  true  or  false?    A. 

2640  He  did  say  to  me  that  which  he  there  declares  he  did 
not  say. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  This  is  not  a  question.  I  will  read  the 
rest  of  the  statement.  (Reading.)  'Such  matters  as  I 
have  received  from  Mr.  Barr  or  any  other  clients  are 
held  by  me  in  confidence  and  under  the  obligations  of  an 
attorney. ' 

"Q.  Regarding  this  $15,000,  what  was  said  about  that 
$15,000?  A.  Why,  he  said — it  was  in  the  course  of  a 
statement  made  to  me  in  his  office,  in  which  he  said  that 
former  Governor  Deneen  had  met  Arrison  ana  Gray  at 
the  train  and  had  made  big,  strenuous  efforts  to  get 
them — 

"Q.  What  was  said  about  the  $15,000?  A.  Then  he 
said  that  they  had  $15,000  to  get  them  to  testify. 


Witness  Listened  But  Asked  No  Questions.  553 

"Q.  'That  they  had'?  Who?  A.  That  Deneen  and 
Butts  had. 

' '  Q.  Had  $15,000  of  Committee  funds  or  private  funds  f 
A.  He  didn't  specify  what  it  was;  but  he  said  that  they 
offered  these  men  $1,000  and  put  $500  each  in  a  bank, 
whicli  he  said  was  the  National  Bank  of  the  Republic;  I 
don't  know  what  city  he  meant ;  but  he  also  said  that  they 
had  other  money  to  give  them,  and  that  they  had  $15,000. 

"Q.  Did  you  ask  him  the  name  of  the  bank?  A.  Well, 
he  said  the  National  Bank  of  the  Republic. 

2641  "Q.  Where?  No  statement  was  made  about  that? 
A.    No. 

"Q.  What  else  did  he  say  to  interpret  that?  A.  Well, 
I  understood  him  to  say  that  you  and  Mr.  Butts  agreed 
to  take  up  a  certain  contract  for  $1,000,  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company  having  agreed  to  pay  these  men 
$1,000,  and  you  agreed  to  take  up  that  contract,  and  you 
also  agreed  to  give  them  $1,000,  besides  that;  and  you 
also  agreed  to  pay  their  expenses ;  and  that  was  not  the 
limit;  there  was  $15,000  that  you  had  to  use  for  this 
purpose.  And  he  also  added  that  you  and  Mr.  Butts  put 
$500  each  in  the  National  Bank  of  the  Republic. 

"Q.    To  whose  credit?    A.    That  is  all  he  said  about  it. 

"Q.  Did  you  ask  to  whose  credit  that  was  placed? 
A.    No,  I  did  not. 

"Q.  And  you  don't  know  the  bank?  A.  Well,  he  said 
the  National  Bank  of  the  Republic. 

"Q.  That  two  amounts  of  $500  each  were  placed  in 
the  National  Bank  of  the  Republic?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  Was  anybody's  name  mentioned  in  connection 
with  that?    A.    Butts  and  Deneen. 

"Q.    Any  man  in  connection  with  the  bank?    A.    No. 

"Q.  You  are  not  sure  that  the  bank  was  in  Chicago? 
A.    I  said  he  said  the  National  Bank  of  the  Republic. 

"Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  that  would  in  any 
shape  indicate  to  you  that  that  was  the  National  Bank 
of  the  Republic?  A.  I  didn't  know  there  was  such  a 
bank." 

2642  Judge  Moon  did  not  mention  the  location  of  the  Na- 
tional Bank  of  the  Republic  mentioned  in  the  witness' 
affidavit. 

Judge  Moon's  statement  was  made  in  his  office  twice, 
once  to  the  witness  alone,  and  once  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 
Walker. 

Mr.  Walker  did  not  ask  the  name  of  the  bank  or  to 


554  Witness  Fails  to  Verify  Statements. 

whose  credit  the  money  was  deposited  or  anything  about 
the  money. 

2643  Judge  Moon  did  not  state  when  the  money  was  de- 
posited when  he  told  him  that  it  was  deposited. 

2644  Judge  Moon  did  not  state  of  whom  Mr.  Keeley  had 
asked  $50,000. 

2645  Witness  did  not  ask  Judge  Moon  for  any  particulars 
concerning  the  alleged  demand  by  Mr.  Keeley  for  $50,000, 
nor  did  Mr.  Walker,  in  witness '  hearing. 

Judge  Moon  told  witness  he  would  not  give  this  in- 
formation to  the  Committee. 

2646  Witness  had  no  letter  of  introduction  to  Judge  Moon, 
but  went  into  his  office  as  a  reporter  for  the  Examiner. 
"He  said  he  was  glad  to  see  me;  that  he  was  waiting 
to  see  me,  and  that  he  was  glad  to  see  me." 

"Q.  What  did  he  state  to  you,  in  that  conversation? 
A.  Well,  he  said  to  me  that  Duke's  affidavit,  or  Duke's 
statement  given  to  Boyer  was  very  wrong,  all  wrong; 
that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  unprofessional  on  the 
part  of  Duke  to  have  made  any  such  statement;  that  he, 
Moon,  had  $1,000  in  his  possession  for  Arrison,  Gray 
and  Pickler ;  that  the  whole  dispute  as  to  money  had  been 
settled  between  Arrison,  Gray,  Pickler  and  Barr;  and 
that  he  was  ready  to  pay  over  this  money  when  some 
indefinite  time  had  elapsed. 

"  Q.  What  was  the  indefinite  time  to  which  he  referred  ? 
A.    He  kept  that  to  himself ;  I  tried  to  get  him  to  tell  me. 

"Q.  Did  you  ask  him  what  it  was!  A.  Yes,  I  did; 
I  asked  him  when  it  was. 

"Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  the  Empire  Company 
having  signed  a  contract  for  the  payment  of  that  money  ? 
A.    Yes,  he  said  so. 

"Q.  And  that  he  held  that  money  to  be  paid  to  them 
after  an  indefinite  time?    A.    An  indefinite  time,  yes. 

"Q.  What  did  you  ask  him  about  the  time?  A.  Well, 
I  said,  'Is  it  within  a  month  or  two,'  and  he  said  'I  can't 
say,'  and  just  at  that  time  Gray  came  in  and  then  Mr. 
Moon  said  'We  won't  talk  about  it  anv  more.' 

"Q.    He  said  that  before  Gray?    A. '  Yes. 

"Q.  Did  you  discuss  this  matter  among  yourselves; 
while  Gray  was  there?  A.  Yes,  there  was  a  question 
arose  as  to  when  the  money  should  be  paid;  and  Gray 
said  he  was  quite  satisfied  it  would  be  paid. 

"Q.  That  was  talked  right  before  you?  A.  Right 
before  me." 


Testimony  of  E.  E.  Marriott.  555 

2648  "Witness  met  Mr.  Gray  in  the  lobby  of  the  Ballingall 
Hotel.  He  introduced  himself  and  had  a  conversation 
with  him. 

Witness  and  Mr.  Gray  were  alone  the  first  time  wit- 
ness met  Gray. 

* '  Q.  Did  you  discuss  this  case  with  him,  or  the  matter 
before  the  Committee  ?    A.  I  began  to  discuss  it  with  him. 

"Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you?  A.  This  was  at  7 
o'clock  on  Saturday  evening.  He  began  to  tell  me,  I 
asked  him  to  tell  me  what  he  knew  about  the  Duke  state- 
ment, the  Duke  statement;  given  to  Boyer. 

' '  Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you !  A.  He  said  to  me  that 
Duke  had  been  his  counsel  and  they  had  double-crossed 
him  and  betrayed  him. 

"Q.  Did  he  make  any  further  statement!  A.  Yes,  he 
said  that  he  and  Arrison  and  Pickler  had  engaged  Duke 
in  a  claim  that  they  had  against  Barr;  and  that  after 
that  they  settled  this  claim  and  the  money  was  paid,  and 
that  Judge  Moon  had  the  money;  and  that  after  Duke 
knew  that  the  claim  was  settled  and  that  the  money  would 
be  paid,  he  had  made  false  statements  in  this  paper  that 
was  given  to  Boyer ;  and  that  he  and  Arrison  and  Pickler 
were  very  angry  against  Duke ;  and  that  they  thought  he 
had  betrayed  them,  double-crossed  them. 

2649  "Q.  What  did  Mr.  Gray  state  to  you  with  reference  to 
the  services  he  had  rendered  for  the  $1,000!  A.  He 
said  that  he  and  Pickler  and  Newton  Arrison  had  been 
more  or  less  friends  together ;  and  that  Arrison  had  gone 
to  Chicago  and  had  introduced  Mr.  Barr  to  Walsh  and 
through  him  to  other  people. 

"Q.  What  other  people!  A.  Well,  I  don't  know  of 
any  other  people ;  he  said  he  did  not  go  to  Chicago. ' ' 

2650  Mr.  Gray  left  Moon's  office  shortly  after  coming  into 
it  when  witness  was  there  and  returned  while  witness 
was  still  there. 

Gray  had  a  newspaper  and  the  affidavit  which  had  been 
prepared  for  him  by  Judge  Moon. 

2651  Judge  Moon  told  witness  he  had  prepared  this  affidavit 
and  afterward  would  get  the  Arrison  and  Pickler  affi- 
davits made.  Gray  swore  to  the  affidavit  Avhile  witness 
was  present.  It  has  not  been  produced  at  this  hearing 
and  witness  has  the  affidavit  with  him.  Gray  did  not  ask 
for  money  and  witness  gave  no  money  to  Gray. 

2652  Witness  met  Arrison  first  at  Moon's  office  shortly  after 
ten  o'clock  on  the  night  of  the  9th  of  August. 


556  Witness  Hears  Rumors. 

2653  Gray,  Moon  and  Arrison  and  the  witness  were  present. 
Arrison  refused  to  talk  about  this  case. 

2654  Witness  saw  Gray  on  the  afternoon  of  the  11th  after 
the  sub-committee  had  left  Ottumwa  in  the  witness', 
Marriott's,  room  at  the  Ballingall  Hotel. 

The  witness,  Pickler,  Arrison,  Gray,  Mr.  Walker  and 
a  lawyer  of  Ottumwa,  named  Jacques  were  there. 

2655  ' '  Q.  What  did  Mr.  Arrison  say  to  you  while  those  men 
were  present  about  this  case?  A.  Well,  he  said  that 
*if  you  knew  of  the  efforts  that  are  made  to  get  us  to 
testify  it  would  surprise  you. '  He  said  '  The  Roger  Sul- 
livan crowd,  George  E.  Brennan,  has  been  busy  here  all 
this  last  week  and  if  you  knew  what  they  were  offering 
you  would  go  up  in  the  air.' 

' '  Q.  What  was  said  by  you  in  reply  to  that  ?  A.  Well, 
I  didn't  say  anything  of  any  account. 

"Q.  What  was  said  by  Mr.  Walker!  A.  I  don't  know 
that  he  said  anything. 

"Q.  What  was  said  by  Mr.  Thomas  Pickler  in  refer- 
ence to  that  statement!  A.  I  don't  believe  he  said  any- 
thing. 

"Q.    Did  Mr.  Gray  say  anything  about  it  ?    A.    No. 

"Q.  Were  any  questions  asked  of  Mr.  Arrison  as  to 
the  efforts  being  brought  forth  by  Mr.  Sullivan  or  Mr. 
Brennan !    A.    No. 

"Q.  You  knew  that  Mr.  Sullivan  was  not  on  the  con- 
tinent at  that  time!    A.    I  did,  yes. 

"Q.  Did  you  know  that  Mr.  Brennan  had  been  in 
Iowa!    A.    Not  at  all. 

"Q.  And  no  questions  were  asked  about  either  Mr. 
Sullivan  or  Mr.  Brennan  about  their  activities  in  Iowa! 
A.  There  was  nothing  said  about  Mr.  Sullivan's  activi- 
ties. 

"Q.  Or  Mr.  Brennan 's!  A.  Well,  the  way  it  was 
put  was  just  as  I  said  'If  you  knew  what  the  Sullivan 
crowd,  George  E.  Brennan,  have  been  doing  here  you 
would  go  up  in  the  air.'  " 

2658  On  the  night  of  the  11th  witness  saw  Arrison  sitting 
on  the  sidewalk  in  front  of  the  Laclede  Hotel.  Pickler 
was  sitting  with  him  and  witness  believes  that  Mr.  Walker 
was  in  hearing. 

2659  Arrison  said  that  big  money  was  being  offered  to  in- 
duce him  and  others  to  go  to  Chicago  now.  Witness  did 
not  ask  Arrison  by  whom  or  from  whom  the  big  money 
was  coming. 


Witness  Misquoted,  Makes  No  Comment.  557 

2662  Judge  Moon  did  not  state  to  witness  that  he  had  acted 
as  attorney  for  Pickler,  Arrison  and  Gray;  he  said  he 
had  done  things  for  them. 

' '  Q.  Did  he  not  state  to  you  that  he  had  recommended 
these  men  to  go  to  Mr.  Duke  to  collect  the  $1,500  from 
the  Empire  Company  because  he  could  not  take  their 
cases.  He  represented  the  Empire  Company?  A. 
Nothing  of  the  kind  was  said." 

Witness  is  handed  a  statement  in  the  Chicago  Exam- 
iner appearing  in  quotation  marks  as  coming  from  1.uo 
witness  and  says  there  are  things  in  the  statement  which 
he  does  not  recollect  having  said. 

"I  never  said  that;  every  statement  that  I  made  in  my 
affidavit  as  coming  from  these  men  in  Ottumwa  has  been 
substantiated  by  Mr.  Francis  W.  Walker." 

"I  did  not  say  'the  impropriety  of  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  in  making  or  countenancing  such  occur- 
rence is  manifest.'  " 
2664  The  witness  did  not  prepare  a  written  statement  for 
the  printer,  but  made  statements  before  Mr.  Walker, 
Mr.  F.  Lawrence,  and  a  stenographer. 

"Q.  And  did  the  stenographer  take  down  your  state- 
ments? A.  I  don't  know,  1  didn't  know  it  was  to  be 
printed. 

"Q.  Was  Mr.  Walker  there  when  the  statements  were 
made?  A.  He  was  not  there  when  that  statement  was 
made. 

"Q.  Was  Mr.  Fred  Lawrence  there  when  that  state- 
ment was  made?  A.  AVell,  I  say  that  as  a  statement  I 
never  made  that  statement,  but  I  made  statements  and 
was  there  and  the  stenographer  was  there.  And  the  re- 
sult of  it  is  that  I  do  not  remember  to  have  made  that 
statement  as  it  is  there. 

"Q.  You  read  it  the  next  day?  A.  I  read  it  the  next 
day. 

"Q.    You  have  not  corrected  it?    A.    No. 

"Q.  Have  you  discussed  it  with  Mr.  Walker?  A.    Never. 

"Q.  Have  you  discussed  it  with  Mr.  Fred  Lawrence? 
A.    No. 

"Q.    Have  you  discussed  it  with  anybody?    A.    No. 

"Q.    You  let  it  go  unchallenged?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.    And  uncorrected?    A.    Yes." 
2666    Witness  did  not  state  that  all  the  statements  made  in 
his  affidavit  could  be  vouched  for  by  Mr.  Walker,  "but 
that  the  statements  made  by  Moon  and  statements  made 


558  Testimony  of  E.  E.  Marriott. 

by  Arrison  and  statements  made  by  Walsh  in  my  affidavit, 
and  all  but  one  statement  made  by  me  could  be  vouched 
for  by  Mr.  Walker." 

Mr.  Walker  probably  heard  witness  make  this  state- 
ment. There  was  a  stenographer  present  but  witness  was 
not  dictating  a  statement  but  answering  questions  of  Mr. 
Fred  Lawrence  and  Mr.  Walker. 

Witness  answered  these  questions  in  the  editorial 
rooms  of  the  Exairdner  office  and  the  statement  must 
have  been  prepared  on  Thursday  night.  It  was  pub- 
lished Friday. 

2668  Witness  is  handed  a  copy  of  the  Chicago  Inter  Ocean 
and  his  attention  called  to  a  statement  of  an  interview 
purporting  to  come  from  Charles  Walsh,  in  which  the 
statement  is  made,  "I  did  not  tell  him  that  I  talked 
with  Arrison,  Gray  and  Pickler,  on  December  10th,  and 
such  was  not  the  case,  for  in  fact  I  did  not  talk  with 
Gray  and  Pickler  at  all  and  knew  nothing  about  it  until 
Arrison  came  to  Chicago;  but  whatever  time  that  may 
have  been  I  have  no  recollection  of  the  time,  and  told  me 
that  my  old  political  friends,  himself.  Gray  and  Pickler, 
wanted  me  to  go  to  Mr.  Barr  and  get  information  from 
him  as  to  political  control  as  to  the  conditions  in  Chi- 
cago and  make  him  acquainted  with  such  parties  as  it 
might  be  important  for  him  to  meet  while  trying  to  sell 
machines  of  his  company.  Arrison  said  that  it  might 
be  a  great  favor  to  him,  Gray  and  Pickler.  I  told  him 
at  the  time  that  I  would  be  glad  to  go  to  Mr.  Barr  any 
time  in  my  power  and  to  make  him  acquainted  with  cer- 
tain people  that  I  knew." 

2669  "Q.  Now,  in  view  of  this  statement,  do  you  desire  to 
correct  your  statements  that  appear  in  your  affidavit 
as  coming  from  him  ?  A.  I  would  just  as  soon,  it  seems 
to  be  a  very  little  different." 

"Q.  I  notice  in  the  statement  here  that  Mr.  Walsh 
said  that  'they  wanted  him  (meaning  Mr.  Walsh)  to  give 
Mr.  Barr  all  the  information  as  to  the  political  control 
of  conditions  in  Chicago  and  to  make  him  acquainted 
with  such  parties  as  it  might  be  important  for  him  to 
meet  while  trying  to  sell  machines  of  his  company. '  Who 
are  the  other  men  that  they  talked  about?  A.  That  is 
too  much  for  me,  if  you  will  repeat  the  question. 

"  Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  about  this,  with  Mr.  Walsh  ? 
A.    I  talked  with  Mr.  Walsh  about  him,  about  Arrison, 


Arrison's  Visit  to  Chicago.  559 

Ari'ison's  visit  to  Chicago  and  about  Arrison  calling  on 
Walsh  and  Walsh  going  to  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel  at 
night  and  afterwards  Walsh  introducing  Barr  at  the 
Election  Commissioners'  Office  to  Mr.  Stuart. 

"Q.    Did  you  talk  with  him?    A.    I  did. 

"Q.  Did  Mr.  Walsh  then  bring  out  the  conversation 
that  was  had  between  Stuart,  Arrison  and  Barr?     A. 

2670  He  said  that  he  introduced  Mr.  Stuart  to  Mr.  Barr  and 
left  them  there. 

"Q.  Did  he  state  whether  or  not  he  had  talked  with 
Mr.  Arrison  and  Mr.  Barr  about  the  result  of  the  con- 
versation between  Mr.  Stuart  and  Mr.  Barr?  A.  No,  he 
did  not. 

"Q.  Did  he  state  when  these  introductions  occurred? 
A.  Well,  he  said  he  thought  it  was  in  January,  1911 — 
or  he  thought  it  was  in  December,  1910,  Barr  told  him 
that  he  (Barr)  understood  that  Arrison  was  registered — 
had  registered  at  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel  in  January, 
1911,  and  then  he  said,  'Well,  I  guess  it  must  have  been 
January,  1911.' 

2671  "Q.  Did  he  talk  about  any  other  persons  to  whom  he 
had  made  introductions  in  behalf  of  or  for  Mr.  Arrison? 
A.     He  said  that. 

"Q.  Or  Mr.  Barr?  A.  He  said  that  Mr.  Barr  asked 
him,  Mr.  Walsh,  said  that  Barr  asked  Walsh  to  intro- 
duce Barr  to  A.  M.  Lawrence. 

"Q.  Yes.  A.  And  that  he,  Walsh,  would  find  out 
from  Mr.  A.  M.  Lawrence  whether  Mr.  A.  M.  Lawrence 
would  meet  Barr  and  then  Mr.  A.  M.  Lawrence  said  to 
him,  when  Walsh  made  the  request,  'Who  is  Barr?'  and 
Mr.  Walsh  said  that  he  told  Mr.  Lawrence  that  he  was 
a  representative  of  one  of  the  voting  machine  companies 
that  is  looking  for  a  contract  in  Chicago  and  that  Mr. 
Lawrence  said  to  him,  'I  won't  meet  him,  I  don't  want 
to  meet  any  of  these  voting  machine  men.'  " 

2672  Witness  does  not  know  that  Walsh  was  connected  with 
the  Examiner. 

Walsh  said  that  Arrison  met  Walsh  at  the  Examiner's 
office  and  "This  was  in  the  old  Examiner  building  at 
•the  corner  of  Franklin  and  Madison  and  that  Arrison 
called  there  and  got  him  to  go  from  there  to  the  Grand 
Pacific  Hotel."  Walsh  did  not  say  he  had  an  appoint- 
ment with  Arrison. 

"Q.  Did  he  state  that  Mr.  Arrison  went  direct  from 
the  train  to  the  Examiner  office  to  meet  him?    A.    Well, 


560  Walsh  and  Arrison  Had  Appointment. 

I  think  lie  admitted — I  think  he  may  have  said  so,  I  don't 
know. ' ' 

Witness  understood  from  some  source  that  they,  Walsh 
and  Arrison,  had  an  appointment. 

In  Ottumwa  Mr.  Walsh  told  witness  he  could  not  recol- 
lect anybody  to  whom  he  introduced  Barr,  except  Stuart. 
Walsh  said  he  was  not  to  receive  any  money  for  the 
services  to  Barr. 

2674  Walsh  said  Arrison,  Gray  and  Pickler  were  to  get 
$1,500. 

Walsh  said  that  messengers  had  come  to  him  from 
Mr.  Czarnecki  saying  that  if  Czarnecki  was  looked  after 
in  a  money  way  * '  the  fight  against  Barr  would  be  ended. ' ' 

Witness  did  not  inquire  who  the  messengers  were,  what 
they  asked  for  the  time  they  came  to  see  Mr.  Walsh,  or 
if  any  price  was  mentioned 

2675  Witness  had  two  conversations  with  Walsh  upon  this 
subject.  At  the  second  conversation  Mr.  Walker  was 
present  and  Walsh  made  the  same  statement  about  Com- 
missioner Czarnecki. 

Mr.  Walker  did  not  ask  the  names  of  the  go-betweens, 
or  the  times,  or  the  places,  or  amounts  of  money,  or  ' '  any 
question  that  would  elicit  a  clue."  The  conversation 
occurred  at  Walsh's  home. 

2681  Witness  understood  that  Arrison,  Pickler  and  Gray 
were  all  going  to  testify. 

Arrison  did  not  testify  to  Avitness'  knowledge.  Wit- 
ness did  not  advise  any  of  them  to  testify  or  not  to  testify. 

Mr.  Walsh  told  witness  he  was  ready  to  come  at  any 
time,  either  in  Ottumwa  or  Chicago. 

2682  "Q.  Did  you  advise  him  to  come?  A.  Certainly.  I 
said  we,  would  agree  we  would  have  a  carriage  w^aiting 
outside  the  committee  room  at  any  time  he  was  ready." 

Witness  does  not  know  of  any  other  reporter  before  the 
examiners  who  were  present  at  Ottumwa  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Roberts  was  not  there.  Mr.  Griswold  had  not 
been  there,  to  witness '  knowledge.    Mr.  Hunter  was  there. 

2683  Witness  met  Mr.  Duke  at  his  law  office  on  August  9th. 

2684  Hotelkeeper  Klein  took  and  introduced  him  to  Duke  as 
a  reporter  of  the  Chicago  Examiner.  Witness  asked 
Duke  about  the  paper  furnished  to  the  Legislative  Com- 
mittee by  Representative  Boyer  of  which  witness  then 
produced  a  copy  and  asked  if  Duke  had  given  the  paper 
to  Boyer.    Duke  said  he  had. 

2685  Witness  then  asked  Duke  about  the  statement  made 


What  Witness  Heard  About  Duke  Statement.        561 

in  the  paper  and  Duke  refused  to  give  him  the  informa- 
tion, but  said  that  he  got  the  statement  from  his  clients, 
Arrison,  Pickler,  and  Gray,  and  asked  why  the  witness 
did  not  gOi  and  see  them. 

Witness  said  he  had  already. seen  them,  that  they  had 
told  him  that  after  the  matter  had  been  settled  and  the 
money  placed  in  the  hands  of  Judge  Moon,  Duke  had 
given  the  statement  to  Boyer  and  said  that  Duke  ought 
to  be  disbarred. 

Duke  said  he  would  not  talk  with  him  any  more  and 
that  was  all  there  was  to  the  interview. 
2687    Witness  knows  George  Sapp.    Witness  did  not  see  him 
in  Ottumwa  or  about  the  hearing  room  here. 

2689  Mr.  Walsh  told  witness  he  had  introduced  Barr  to 
Stuart  in  Chicago. 

Witness  did  not  talk  with  Gray  about  what  services 
Walsh  had  rendered  the  Empire  Company  in  Chicago, 
and  Gray  made  no  statement  regarding  it. 

Walsh  never  mentioned  Judge  Moon's  name  in  his  con- 
versation with  witness. 

2690  He  did  mention  Arrison,  Gray  and  Pickler,  and  said 
he  would  help  witness  find  them. 

2692  Gray  told  witness  that  the  $1,000  contract  was  made 
some  time  in  May  of  this  year. 

2693  Witness,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Klein,  asked  Gray  if 
they  were  coming  to  Chicago  to  testify  that  Gray  said 
that  was  to  be  settled  later.  Arrison  refused  to  say  any- 
thing about  testifying. 

2695  In  a  conversation  had  with  Gray,  Gray  said  Governor 
Deneen  had  wired  Arrison  and  Gray  to  meet  him,  Deneen, 
at  Ottumwa ;  that  they  met  Deneen  there  and  told  him 
that  the  $1,500  matter  had  been  settled  for  $1,000,  and 
that  Deneen  said  he  would  take  up  the  contract  and  urged 
them  to  come  to  Chicago  to  testify  and  that  "if  they 
would  come  across  with  this  testimony  like  it  was  in  the 
statement  given  by  Duke  to  Boyer,  that  you  would  have 
enough  to  drive  Andy  Lawrence  out  of  Chicago." 

Witness  did  not  ask  for  the  telegram  or  make  any  in- 
quiry regarding  the  message  from  Deneen  to  Arrison  and 
Gray. 

Witness  told  Mr.  Walker  about  it  but  does  not  know 
that  Mr.  Walker  made  any  inquiry  regarding  it. 

2698  In  making  the  statement  in  the  Examiner  office  to  Mr. 
Fred  Lawrence  and  Mr.  Walker  about  witness'  visit  to 
Ottumwa  and  Moon's  statement  about  the  deposits  of 


562  Testimony  of  E.  E.  Marriott. 

two  sums  of  $500  each  in  the  National  Bank  of  Republic, 
Mr.  Lawrence  did  not  ask  witness  to  be  specific  about 
tlie  bank. 
2701  "Q.  In  your  quotation  of  the  alleged  statement  made 
to  you  by  Judge  Moon,  you  say  '  Newton  L.  Arrison,  John 
W.  Gray  have  each  and  severally  told  me  the  same  story, 
to  the  effect  that  H.  W.  Barr,  agent  for  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company,  told  them  in  his  room  at  the  Hotel 
Ballingall,  Ottumwa,  one  night  in  the  winter  of  1911-12 
that  it  would  cost  a  big  sum  to  get  the  Chicago  voting  ma- 
chine contract  for  the  Empire  Company.'  Is  that  a  cor- 
rect statement?    A.    Yes. 

"Q.  The  contract  had  been  awarded  to  the  company 
for  at  least  six  months?  A.  I  don't  know  when  it  was 
awarded,  it  was  awarded — 

"Q.  It  was  awarded  in  July,  1911,  you  say.  Judge 
Moon  told  you,  and  made  a  statement  to  you  that  these 
men  had  told  him  in  the  winter  of  1911  that  it  would  cost 
him  a  big  sum  to  get  the  Chicago  voting  machine  con- 
tract, for  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company.  Did 
he  make  such  a  statement  to  that  effect ?  A.  Yes." 
2704-5  Neither  Mr.  Walker  nor  witness  discussed  with  Mr. 
Moon  his  statement  that  ' '  Deneen,  Butts,  and  other  poli- 
ticians had  $15,000  to  spend  to  get  the  testimony  of  these 
men, ' '  or  that ' '  The  Chicago  Tribune  was  willing  to  come 
across  with  a  few  thousand  dollars."  Nor  did  they  ask 
him  for  information  which  would  enable  them  to  trace 
the  source  of  the  story. 

"Witness  understood  the  statement  that  "The  Chicago 
Tribune  was  willing  to  come  across  with  a  few  thousand 
dollars,"  simply  meant  that  they  were  willing  to  pay  for 
' '  the  real  facts  of  an  investigation  like  this. ' '  Not  that  they 
would  buy  testimony  and  corrupt  witnesses. 
2708  Witness  did  not  know  from  what  source  the  money, 
which,  according  to  Judge  Moon's  statement,  was  to  be 
placed  in  the  National  Bank  of  the  Republic,  was  to  come. 
2710  "Q.  He  (Judge  Moon)  repudiates  it?  A.  He  can't 
repudiate  it;  it  is  true." 

"The  Witness.  I  don't  know  whether  he  repudiates  it 
or  not. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  his  signature?  A.  No,  sir,  I  don't 
know  his  signature. 

"Q.  Just  read  it  and  see.  A.  I  don't  know  what  that 
paper  contains. 

"Q.    That  is  a  paper  which  the  chairman  said  he  re- 


Testimony  of  E.  E.  Marriott.  563 

ceived  in  his  letter  from  Judge  Moon.    A.    Why  didn't 
he  swear  to  it?" 

2713  Tlie  statement  made  by  Gray  that  Mr.  Deneen  said 
something  about  driving  Andy  Lawrence  out  of  Chicago 
was  made  before  Mr.  Walker. 

2714  And  also  in  the  Ballingall  Hotel  when  Mr.  Jayne  was 
there,  but  maybe  not  within  hearing  distance. 

2715  And  also  in  Judge  Moon's  office. 

2713-2723  Witness  is  asked  about  Gray's  statement  about  Mr. 
Deneen  and  Butts  depositing  $500  each  and  about  Mr. 
Deneen 's  statement  concerning  driving  Andy  Lawrence 
out  of  Chicago.  Witness  did  not  understand  Gray  to 
mean  that  this  could  be  done  simply  by  telling  what  Barr 
had  told  him,  Arrison  and  P^ckler,  concerning  Barr's 
transactions  with  Lawrence  and  the  alleged  arrangement 
by  which  Lawrence  was  to  receive  $105,000. 

2723  Gray  said  Barr  told  him  he  had  to  pay  a  lot  of  money. 
"The  Witness.  I  asked  him  to  tell  me  more  about  it, 
but  he  said,  'I  am  not  telling  any  more.'  " 


VOLUME  XXV. 

Wednesday, ,  1913. 

Morning. 

Edwabd  E.  Marriott. resumes  the  stand. 

Further  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2726  Arrison  told  witness  in  Ottumwa,  "If  you  knew  of  the 
work  down  here  in  Ottumwa  last  week  of  George  E. 
Brennan  of  the  Roger  Sullivan  crowd,  to  get  us  to  go  up 
against  Lawrence,  you  would  go  up  in  the  air. ' ' 

Witness  made  no  inquiry  of  Arrison  or  anyone  else  to 

ascertain  whether  Brennan  had  in  fact  been  in  Ottumwa. 

Walker,  Gray,  Pickler  and  Jacques  were  present  when 

this  statement  was  made  in  the  Ballingall  Hotel  Monday 

afternoon,  August  11th. 

2728  The  witness'  affidavit  was  prepared  on  Tuesday,  the 
day  after  the  sub-committee  was  at  Ottumwa  in  the 
Examiner  office  by  witness  and  a  stenographer.  Witness 
had  no  other  assistant.  Witness  did  not  consult  with  Mr. 
F.  Lawrence  about  it,  or  with  Mr.  Walker,  nor  did  he 


564  Witness  Prepares  His  Affidavit. 

communicate  with  Mr.  A.  M.  Lawrence,  or  anybody  else 
regarding  it. 
2729    Before  it  was  made,  the  witness  told  Walker  he  was 
going  to  make  it  and  went  over  its  contents  with  him  on 
the  way  from  Ottumwa. 
2729-34    The  witness'  affidavit  was  prepared  Tuesday  even- 
ing in  the  office  of  the  Examiner  and  the  witness  handed 
a  copy  to  Mr.  Walker  next  morning  on  the  way  to  and 
about  five  minutes  before  reaching  the  hearing  room. 
2734     "The  stenographer,  when  he  prepared  a  copy,  made 
another  copy,  three  copies." 

The  witness  is  asked: 

"Q.  You  say  nobody  knew  the  contents  of  this  affi- 
davit except  the  stenographer  and  you?  A.  As  far  as  I 
know  there  was  lots  of  copies  made. 

"Q.  And  held  over  at  the  paper,  I  assume?  A.  Well, 
I  left  some  copies  there." 
2736  Witness  made  memoranda  of  his  conversations  with 
various  persons  in  Ottumwa ;  these  he  produces  and  hands 
to  counsel.  They  are  partly  in  longhand  and  partly  in 
shorthand. 

The  memoranda  were  retained  for  future  examination 
by  counsel. 
2771     The  witness'  affidavit  was  prepared  at  the  request  of 
the  managing  editor  of  the  Examiner. 

Witness  did  not  ask  Pickler,  Arrison  and  Gray  to  come 
before  this  committee  to  testify  but  thought  they  were 
going  to  testify  before  the  sub-committee  in  Iowa. 

2773  Mr.  Duke  did  appear  before  the  committee,  but  was 
not  asked  to  testify. 

2774  Was  not  asked  any  questions  about  the  witness'  affi- 
davit. 

2779  Examination  hy  Mr.  Walker. 

On  the  Sunday  train  going  from  Chicago  witness  told 
Walker  about  his  various  interviews  with  men  in  Ottum- 
wa on  Friday  and  Saturday. 

Witness  and  Mr.  Walker  went  to  Walsh's  house  and 
Walker  kept  a  carriage  at  the  hotel.  "Mr.  Walsh  not 
being  able  to  walk  on  account  of  the  condition  of  his  feet, 
so  that  the  committee  could  call  him  and  he  could  be 
driven  down  to  the  hotel." 


Pickler,  Arrison  and  Gray,  Salesmen.  565 

2782  Examination  by  Mr.  Mitchell. 

Witness  always  understood  that  the  three  men,  Pickler, 
Arrison  and  Gray,  were  salesmen  for  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company. 

2787  Witness  made  one  expense  account  only  for  his  two 
trips  to  Ottumwa  when  he  left  Sunday  for  Ottumwa  he 
got  his  salary  and  about  $50  for  expenses.  The  expense 
account  was  made  to  F.  W.  Lawrence. 

2789  Witness  has  Mr.  Gray's  affidavit  in  his  possession.  It 
has  not  been  submitted  to  the  committee. 

2792  (The  witness  is  requested  to  hand  the  affidavit  to  Mr. 
Thomason  for  perusal.  This  is  done  and  thereupon 
the  affidavit  is  handed  by  Mr.  Thomason  to  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee,  and  subsequently  returned  to  the  wit- 
ness.) 

2794  The  witness'  room  at  the  Ballingall  Hotel  adjoined 
that  of  Mr.  Walker. 

The  witness'  affidavit  was  not  prepared  in  his  room 
at  the  Ballingall  Hotel  Monday  afternoon  and  evening, 
August  11th. 

Senator  Landee  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
witness'  affidavit  was  not  presented  to  the  Committee  by 
Mr.  Walker  until  Thursday  morning.  The  witness  then 
states  that  in  that  case  he  prepared  his  affidavit  on 
Wednesday,  not  Tuesday  night  and  handed  it  to  Mr. 
Walker  Thursday,  not  Wednesday,  morning. 

2798  "Mr.  Deneen.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  let  us  have  the  affi- 
davit again,  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Gray." 

(The  affidavit  was  thereupon  produced  by  the  wit- 
ness and  marked  "for  identification  #1,  August  20, 
1913,  E.  J.  v.") 

2799  The  affidavit  is  dated  Saturday,  August  9th. 
S^ubsequently  to  securing  this  affidavit  the  witness  had 

conversations  with  Gray  in  Moon's  office  embodying  the 
matters  not  included  in  the  affidavit,  but  which  are  con- 
tained in  the  shorthand  and  longhand  memoranda  handed 
to  Mr.  Deneen  by  the  witness. 

2800  Witness  did  not  ask  Gray  for  this  affidavit.  Mr.  Moon 
told  the  witness  he  would  get  affidavits  from  all  three 
men  and  give  him  (witness)  the  Gray  affidavit. 

2801  The  affidavit  was  handed  to  witness  in  Moon's  office 
and  the  interlineations  appearing  in  it.  Gray  said,  were 
written  in  by  him. 


566  Testimony  of  E.  A.  Keppler. 

The  witness  wrote  his  name  on  the  affidavit  as  a  wit- 
ness. 

2802  F.  W.  Lawrence  assigned  the  witness  to  go  to  Ottumwa 
in  the  presence  of  Mr.  James  C.  Kussell  to  "find  out 

2803  what  I  could  from  every  person  named  in  the  affidavit, 
from  every  person  wlio  had  anything  to  do  with  it. ' '  By 
"affidavit"  the  witness  means  the  Duke  statement. 

Witness'  instructions  for  his  second  trip  to  Ottumwa 
was  to  go  to  the  hearing  and  continue  his  investigations. 

2803  "Witness  received  one  or  two  telegrams  and  one  tele- 
phone call  from  the  Examiner  while  in  Ottumwa  on  the 
first  trip.    On  the  second  visit  none  at  all. 

Mr.  Walsh  did  not  say  that  he  had  received  any  com- 
munications from  the  Examiner  prior  to  witness '  arrival 
in  Ottumwa. 

2806  Witness  demanded  to  be  heard  by  the  sub-committee 
in  Ottumwa  and  if  he  had  been  heard  he  would  have  told 
them  everything. 

2808  Witness'  expense  account  on  the  Ottumwa  trip  was, 
he  thinks,  $112.  He  does  not  expect  any  bonus  for 
making  his  affidavit. 

Afternoon  Session. 
Wednesday,  August  20,  1913. 

E.  A.  Keppler: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2810  Resides  at  Elgin,  Illinois;  a  salesman  for  the  Inter- 
national Voting  Machine  Company. 

2811  Was  in  the  employ  of  Mr.  Petrie  in  1911. 

In  the  last  part  of  July,  1911,  witness  took  a  photo- 
graph of  a  voting  machine  in  the  office  of  the  Chicago 
Election  Commissioners. 

Witness  is  handed  a  number  of  photographs  of  which 
he  says  he  can  identify  all. 

The  one  marked  "State's  Exhibit  2  of  August  15, 1913" 
shows  a  voting  machine  with  the  name-plate  "The  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company,  Rochester,  New  York." 

2812  The  object  of  taking  the  picture  was  to  get  the  num- 
ber of  the  machine  but  it  does  not  show  on  the  plate 
marked  as  an  exhibit. 

Witness  examines  another  photograph  bearing  a  name- 
plate  "Jamestown,  New  York."  This  name-plate  was  on 
the  little  machine  in  the  Commissioners'  room. 


Witness  Photographs  Empire  Machine.  567 

Witness  thinks  a  9-party,  40-key  machine. 
2813     The  machine  marked  "Exhibit  2"  was  a  9-party,  70- 
key  machine. 

Commissioner  Czarnecki  was  in  the  doorway  when  wit- 
ness took  the  picture  of  the  machine  in  the  room. 

The  number  of  the  machine  was  taken  by  Miss  Roxie 
Given  who  is  now  employed  by  the  Chicago  Dairy  Produce 
Company. 

Mr.  L.  R.  Winslow  of  the  Winslow  Voting  Machine 
Company  .and  his  stenographer  also  took  the  number. 

At  another  time  Miss  Grace  Watts,  a  public  stenogra- 
pher then  in  the  Monadnock  Block  and  now  in  England, 
took  the  number,  and  the  stenographer  whom  Miss  Given 
brought  there  also  took  the  number 

Witness  has  also  a  record  of  the  number  of  the  ma- 
chine, but  has  not  been  able  to  find  it,  which  was  the 
same  as  the  number  as  published  in  the  Chicago  Daily 
News  of  which  witness  has  a  clipping. 

2815  The  number  of  the  large  machine  was  under  4,000, 
and  was  smaller  than  the  number  of  the  small  machine. 
"The  big  machine  was  a  lower  number  and  the  small 
machine  was  the  newer  machine  you  could  tell  the  num- 
ber was  manufactured  since  the  large  machine  was." 

2816  Witness  thinks  the  number  of  the  large  machine  was 
3592. 

"Q.  Have  you  ever  refreshed  your  recollection  as  to 
the  point  you  wanted  to  bring  out?  A.  I  wanted  to  see 
if  this  machine  that  was  on  exhibition  was  the  same  identi- 
cal machine  that  had  been  exhibited  to  the  old  Board 
and  had  been  turned  down  and  that  they  had  refused  to 
buy  the  same  70-key,  9-party  machine  that  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company  had  submitted  to  the  city  of 
Chicago  then." 
2816-7  "Q.  How  did  you  expect  to  identify  that  machine 
as  the  one  rejected?  A.  Because  I  knew  that  they  had 
built  a  number  of  machines  later  than  this  and  delivered 
them  to  my  home  county,  Pulaski  County,  Indiana,  with 
the  number  of  this  machine  compared  along  the  same 
serial  number  as  the  smaller  machine,  now  in  the  forties, 
some  place,  while  this  other  old  machine  was  back  in 
the  thirty-nine  series. 

"Q.  Did  you  take  the  photograph  to  preserve  the 
number  of  the  machine  and  the  plate?  A.  That  is  why 
I  took  it;  I  misspoke  awhile  ago,  I  said  the  number  was 


568  The  Serial  Number  of  Empire  Machine. 

back  in  the  thirty-nine  series,  I  meant  it  away  back,  I 
think  in  the  thirty-five  series." 

2819  Cross-Examvnation  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2821  The  machine  the  witness  thinks  was  numbered  3592 
did  not  have  a  party -lever,  it  had  a  party-key;  it  had 
spaces  for  irregular  voting  and  was  of  the  same  color 
and  size  and  the  same  design  of  keyboard  as  the  Empire 
machine  present  in  the  room. 

2822  The  witness  cannot  recall  whether  the  machine  he  pho- 
tographed had  a  release-lever.  When  witness  went  in  to 
find  out  about  it  he  was  politely  ejected  from  the  room. 

2823  The  witness  examined  the  machine  three  different 
times,  about  ten  minutes  each  time. 

' '  Q.  You  say  Mr.  Czarnecki  was  there  ?  A.  That  time, 
yes. 

"Q.  Did  you  ask  him  to  permit  you  to  spend  all  of 
the  time  necessary  to  look  at  the  machine?    A.    I  did. 

"Q.  What  did  he  say  about  it!  A.  He  said  it  would 
be  all  right  here,  that  the  machines  were  there  for  public 
inspection  and  I  had  a  right,  too,  but  the  men  that  were 
in  there  would  not  let  me. ' ' 

2824  Witness  has  no  information  as  to  whether  the  Empire 
Company  "used  the  United  States  Standard  numbers  to 
begin  with  and  then  kept  right  on  numbering  when  they 
manufactured  the  Empire." 

Witness  naturally  supposed  that  the  Empire  Company 
would  have  put  on  a  name-plate  with  "Jamestown,  New 
York,"  on  it  and  a  later  serial  number,  had  the  larger 
machine  been  a  new  machine. 

Witness  does  not  know  that  the  Empire  Company  used 
the  name  "Rochester"  on  their  machine,  but  their  office 
was  located  at  Rochester. 
2829  Witness  took  the  photograph  and  number  of  the  largef 
machine  some  time  in  the  latter  part  of  July,  1911,  after 
the  award  of  the  contract  was  announced. 
2833  Wlien  the  witness  went  to  inspect  the  Empire  voting 
machine  he  was  ejected  from  the  room,  he  does  not  know 
by  whom.  "I  think  I  would  know  the  gentleman  if  I  saw 
him,  he  was  somebody  who  said  his  duty  was  to  keep 
anybody  else  from  going  there  and  examining  this  ma- 
chine. ' ' 

The  room  was  right  back  of  where  the  Election  Com- 
missioners have  their  desks. 


Testimony  of  E.  A.  Keppler.  569 

2834  The  witness  had  permission  of  Election  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  to  examine  the  voting  machine  and  take-  a  ste- 
nographer and  her  machine  into  the  room,  but  the  man 
in  charge  took  the  macliine  and  carried  it  out  and  the 
witness  and  his  stenographer  went  out. 

2835  Mr.  Hall  visited  the  room  one  day  and  noticed  "this 
machine  had  the  Jamestown  plate  and  the  serial  number 
was  much  lower  than  the  40-key  machine  or  the  newer 
machine. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Just  a  minute  before  you  leave,  I 
would  like  to  introduce  now  these  two  exhibits  as  marked, 
'State's  Exhibit  1  on  August  15th,  1913,  C.  S.  D.'  and 
'State's  Exhibit  2  of  August  15th,  1913,  C.  S.  D.'  Now  I 
will  ask  to  introduce  the  other  ones,  now  that  they  have 
been  identified  as  the  pictures  of  the  machine,  it  is  identi- 
fied here  and  its  identity  may  become  an  issue,  and  if  so 
I  think  all  of  the  photographs  are  competent,  these  two 
bear  directly  upon  it  and  the  others  disclose  what  kind 
of  a  machine  it  was  they  examined,  its  size,  and  the  num- 
ber of  keys. 

"Eep.    Kasseeman.    Have    these    other    photographs 

2836  been  identified.  Governor? 

"Mr.  Deneen.  By  him  only;  you  stated  these  photo- 
graphs were  photographs  of  that  machine  and  were  taken 
by  you. 

"A.  Photographs  of  that  machine  taken  by  me  at  the 
same  time,  photographs  of  the  two  machines  at  that  time 
in  the  Commissioners'  room. 

"Q.  I  understood  that,  I  asked  that,  to  identify  the 
plate  and  number.  We  inquired  about  the  two  ladies 
that  took  the  number  off.  They  expected  litigation  at 
that  time. 

"The  Chairman.    Let  them  be  marked. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  These  additional  negatives  are  marked 
as  'State's  Exhibits  1  to  7  inclusive,  August  20,  1913, 
C.  S.  D. '  and  the  other  two  are  marked  '  State 's  Exhibits 
1  and  2,  respectively,  August  15,  1913,  C.  S.  D.'  That  is 
all  I  care  to  ask  this  witness. "    *    »    * 

2839  "Mr.  Whittakee  (reading).  'Affidavit  made  by  John 
W.  Gray,  former  Chief  of  Police,  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  August 
9,  1913. 


570  The  Jolvn  Gray  Affidavit. 

State  of  Iowa,        j 
Wapello  County.  \ 

I,  John  W.  Gray,  of  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  being  duly  sworn, 
on  oath,  state: 

That  I  became  acquainted  with  H.  W.  Barr  in  Ottumwa, 
while  he  was  here  negotiating  a  sale  for  voting  machines. 
I  saw  him  a  number  of  times  and  became  well  acquainted 
with  him.  On  one  occasion  in  company  with  Mr.  N.  L. 
Arrison  and  Mr.  T.  H.  Pickler,  I  met  Mr.  Barr  on  the 
street  in  Ottumwa.  We  had  some  general  conversation 
and  Mr.  Barr,  in  the  coiirse  of  the  talk,  made  reference 
to  the  fact  that  he  would  like  to  make  a  sale  of  his  ma- 
chines to  the  City  of  Chicago.  In  the  course  of  the  talk 
he  said  that  he  should  like  to  meet  the  Chicago  officials 
who  would  have  charge  of  such  a  matter.  He  said  that 
if  he  could  get  a  fair  hearing  with  them  and  meet  them 
under  favorable  circumstances  he  thought  he  could  make 
the  sale,  and  that  he  would  like  to  get  acquainted  with 
somebody  who  would  know  them  and  preferably  some- 
body connected  with  the  Hearst  papers  because  these 
papers  were  supporting  the  administration  in  Cook 
County  and  he  believed  that  they  would  have  an  influence. 
Some  one  of  the  number,  probably  Mr.  Pickler,  said  that 
a  man  resided  here  who  was  employed  by  _  the  Hearst 
papers  and  who  was  a  good  friend  of  his,  Pickler 's,  also 
Gray  and  Arrison,  and  that  he,  Pickler,  believed  that  they 
2840  could  get  Mr.  Barr  acquainted  with  the  officials  that  he 
desired  to  meet  in  the  manner  he  suggested.  Charles  A. 
Walsh  of  Ottumwa  was  the  man  to  whom  Mr.  Pickler 
referred  at  the  time.  There  was  some  further  talk  in 
which  it  was  arranged  that  if  Mr.  Barr  concluded  that 
this  plan  was  feasible  he  would  ask  one  of  our  number 
to  go  to  Chicago  for  the  purpose  indicated.  It  was  the 
understanding  at  the  time  that  if  the  sale  should  be 
made  in  pursuance  of  this  arrangement,  the  three  of  us 
should  receive  compensation  for  services. 

'I  never  knew  anything  about  it  further  and  never 
talked  with  Mr.  Barr  about  it  until  some  time  after  Janu- 
ary, 1911.  In  January,  1911,  Mr.  Barr  communicated 
with  Mr.  Arrison  and  it  is  my  understanding  that  ]\Ir. 
Arrison  went  to  Chicago.  I  know  nothing  of  what  oc- 
curred there  excepting  what  has  been  told  me  by  Mr. 
Arrison,  and  as  I  understand  it  the  City  entered  into  a 
contract  for  the  purchase  of  the  machines  and  for  that 


Ottumwa  Telegrams  and  Letters.  571 

reason  we  have  claimed  and  the  Company  has  agreed  to 
pay  us  for  the  services  rendered. 

'The  above  is  all  that  I  know  about  this  deal.  I  never 
had  any  communication  with  Mr.  A.  M.  Lawrence  at  any 
time.  I  have  never  in  my  life  received  a  letter  from  him 
or  written  any  letter  to  him.  I  have  never  talked  with 
him  over  the  telephone  or  in  any  other  way  nor  has  he 
communicated  with  me  by  telephone  or  telegraph  or  in 
any  other  manner.  I  never  saw  Mr.  Lawrence  in  my 
life  and  have  no  idea  as  to  his  appearance  or  anything 

2841  about,  and  have  no  idea  or  opinion  with  reference  to  the 
contract  between  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company 
and  the  City  of  Chicago  except  as  I  have  stated  in  this 
affidavit. 

(Signed)  John  W.  Geay. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  9th  day  of 
August,  1913. 

(Signed)  R.  R.  Ramsell, 
(Notarial  Seal)  Notary  Public. 

Witness. 

(Signed)  Edward  E.  Marbiott. 

Mr.  Deneen.  That  may  be  marked  'State's  Exhibit 
8,  August  20th,  1913.' 

(Said  document  was  marked  'State's  Exhibit  8,  August 
20th,  1913,  E.  J.  V.') 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Whittaker  to  read 
the  telegrams  and  letters  sent  by  the  Chairman  to  these 
gentlemen  in  Ottumwa,  sent  last  Saturday,  to  get  them 
in  the  record.  I  am  doing  this  because  I  understand  you 
will  take  a  recess  after  tonight  and  get  it  ended  up. 

The  Chairman.  The  telegrams  and  letters  may  be  read 
in  the  record. 

Mr.  Whittaker  (Reading).  The  first  is  a  telegram 
dated  August  16,  1913,  addressed  to  Merrill  C.  Gillmore, 

2842  Ottumwa,  Iowa.  'The  Illinois  Legislative  Investigating 
Committee  urgently  requests  you  to  appear  before  it  at 
the  County  Commissioners'  rooms  in  the  Court  House, 
Chicago,  on  Tuesday,  August  19tli,  at  nine  thirty  A.  M.,  to 
testify  regarding  the  affidavit  submitted  to  the  committee 
by  Edward  E.  Marriott,  and  particularly  those  parts  of 
the  affidavit  in  which  you  are  quoted  as  having  made 
statements  to  him.  Also  as  to  any  knowledge  you  may 
have  in  relation  to  the  voting  machine  contract  between 
the  City  of  Chicago  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 


572  Ottumwa  Communications — Continued. 

pany.    Your  travelling  and  hotel  expenses  will  be  paid  by 
the  committee.    Letter  follows.  Lucas  I.  Butts,  Chairman. 

The  letter  which  is  mentioned  in  the  telegram  is  this 
letter:  (Reading)  'August  16th,  1913.  Mr.  Merrill  C. 
Gillmore,  Ottumwa,  Iowa.  Dear  Sir:  I  sent  you  today 
the  following  telegram : 

The  Illinois  Legislative  Investigating  Committee  ur- 
gently requests  you  to  appear  before  it  at  the  County 
Commissioners'  rooms  in  the  Court  House,  Chicago,  on 
Tuesday,  August  19th,  at  nine  thirty  A.  M.,  to  testify 
regarding  the  affidavit  submitted  to  the  Committee  by 
Edward  E.  Marriott  and  particularly  those  parts  of  the 
affidavit  in  which  you  are  quoted  as  having  made  state- 
ments to  him.  Also  as  to  any  knowledge  you  may  have 
in  relation  to  the  voting  machine  contract  between  the 
City  of  Chicago  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany. Your  traveling  and  hotel  expenses  will  be  paid 
by  the  Committee.  Letter  follows : ' 
2843  *I  enclose  herewith  a  copy  of  the  affidavit  submitted 
to  the  Legislative  Investigating  Committee  by  Edwin  E. 
Marriott  at  its  session  in  the  afternoon  of  Thursday,  the 
14th  inst.  Mr.  Marriott,  in  his  affidavit,  quotes  state- 
ments alleged  to  have  been  made  by  yourself.  These 
statements  are  of  such  a  character  that  the  Committee 
deems  it  due  to  themselves,  to  yourself  and  the  persons 
mentioned  in  the  affidavit  that  you  appear  before  the 
Committee  and  testify  regarding  the  same. 

'  The  Committee  has  set  the  hearing  of  the  matters  in- 
volved in  this  affidavit  for  Tuesday  next  at  nine  thirty 
A.  M.,  at  the  County  Commissioners '  rooms  in  the  Court 
House,  Chicago. 

.  'The  Committee  will  pay  your  traveling  and  hotel  ex- 
penses and  will  arrange  to  have  you  testify  on  Tuesday 
so  that  the  time  occupied  here  may  be  as  short  as  possi- 
ble. May  we  hear  from  you  on  Monday  next?  Yours 
truly.  Chairman.' 

Mr.  Mareiott.  May  I  make  a  remark  here?  That 
seems  to  be  a  letter  to  Mr.  Gillmore  stating  that  Mr.  Mar- 
riott had  stated  that  Mr.  Gillmore  made  statements  to 
him.    I  never  said  that  I  saw  Mr.  Gillmore. 

Mr.  Deneen  If  the  Compiittee  desires  any  response 
to  the  interruption  by  Mr.  Marriott,  his  affidavit  says  that 
Moon  stated  to  him  that  Barr  had  told  the  same  story 
to  Gillmore. 


Committee  Telegraphs  Judge  Moon.  573 

Mr.  Walkee.  He  said  that  Moon  said  that  Barr  said 
the  same  thing  to  Gillmore  that  he  said  to  Moon. 

2844  Mr.  Deneen.    That  is  why  we  wanted  him  to  testify. 
Mr.  Walker.     But  don't  say  that  Marriott  ever  saw 

Gillmore. 

Mr.  Whittakee.  The  next  is  a  telegram  addressed  to 
Hon.  Edwin  G.  Moon,  Ottumwa,  Iowa;  dated  August  16, 
1913.    (Beading.) 

'The  Illinois  Legislative  Investigating  Committee  ur- 
gently requests  you  to  appear  before  it  at  the  County 
Commissioners'  rooms  in  the  Court  House,  Chicago,  on 
Tuesday,  August  19th,  at  nine  thirty  A.  M.,  to  testify 
regarding  the  affidavit  submitted  to  the  Committee  by 
Edward  E.  Marriott  and  particularly  those  parts  of  the 
affidavit  in  which  you  are  quoted  as  having  made  state- 
ments to  him.  Also  as  to  any  knowledge  you  may  have 
in  relation  to  the  voting  machine  contract  between  the 
City  of  Chicago  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany. Your  traveling  and  hotel  expenses  will  be  paid 
by  the  Committee.  Letter  follows.  Lucas  I.  Butts, 
Chairman. ' 

The  letter  that  followed  is  this:  (Reading.) 

'August  16th,  1913. 
Hon.  E.  C.  Moon, 

Ottumwa,  Iowa. 
Dear  Sir: 

I  sent  you  today  the  following  telegram: 
'The  Illinois  Legislative  Investigating  Committee  ur- 
gently requests  you  to  appear  before  it  at  the  County 
Commissioners'  rooms  in  the  Court  House,  Chicago,  on 
Tuesday,  August  19th,  at  nine  thirty  A.  M.,  to  testify 

2845  regarding  the  affidavit  submitted  to  the  Committee  by 
Edward  E.  Marriott  and  particularly  those  parts  of  the 
affidavit  in  which  you  are  quoted  as  having  made  state- 
ments to  him.  Also  as  to  any  knowledge  you  may  have 
in  relation  to  the  voting  machine  contract  between  the 
City  of  Chicago  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany. Your  traveling  and  hotel  expenses  will  be  paid 
by  the  Committee.     Letter  follows.' 

'I  enclose  herewith  a  copy  of  the  affidavit  submitted  to 
the  Legislative  Investigating  Committee  by  Edwin  E. 
Marriott  at  its  session  in  the  afternoon  of  Thursday,  the 
14th,  inst.  Mr.  Marriott,  in  his  affidavit,  quotes  state- 
ments alleged  to  have  been  made  by  yourself.     These 


574  Ottumwa  Communications — Continued. 

statements  are  of  such  a  character  that  the  Committee 
deems  it  due  to  themselves,  to  yourself  and  the  persons 
mentioned  in  the  affidavit  that  you  appear  before  the 
Committee  and  testify  regarding  the  same. 

'The  Committee  has  set  the  hearing  of  the  matters  in- 
volved in,  this  affidavit  for  Tuesday  next  at  nine  thirty 
A.  M.,  at  the  County  Commissioners'  room  in  the  Court 
House,  Chicago. 

'The  Committee  will  pay  your  traveling  and  hotel  ex- 
penses and  will  arrange  to  have  you  testify  on  Tuesday 
so  that  the  time  occupied  here  may  be  as  short  as  possible. 

'  May  I  add  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  you  have  held 
several  official  positions  yourself,  I  am  sure  you  will 
appreciate  our  duty  as  a  committee  to  elicit  all  facts 
2846  which  we  are  investigating  and  especially  to  examine 
carefully  into  charges  of  the  character  made  in  the  affi- 
davit and  that  you  will  co-operate  with  us  by  coming 
before  the  Committee  and  making  a  full  statement  regard- 
ing the  matters  mentioned  in  the  affidavit  and  any  other 
matters  which  it  may  be  necessary  to  submit  to  the  Com- 
mittee. May  we  hear  from  you  on  Monday  next?  Yours 
truly.  Chairman.' 

Mr.  Deneen.  Was  the  letter  from  Judge  Moon  in  re- 
sponse to  that  admitted  in  evidence.  The  statement  by 
him  was  admitted,  but  is  the  letter  in  evidence? 

The  Chaibman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Walkek.  I  don't  know  whether  it  was  put  in  evi- 
dence or  not. 

The  Chairman.    I  have  it  here  marked  as  an  exhibit. 

Mr.  Deneen.  Mark  it  'State's  Exhibit  9,  August  20th, 
1913. '  Better  introduce  it  now.  State  this  was  read  into 
the  record  yesterday  by  the  Chairman  and  also  the  state- 
ment by  Judge  Moon;  that  has  been  read  in  the  record 
twice,  but  I  think  it  should  be  marked ;  it  is  marked  here 
'Keeley  Exhibit  1,  8/19/13';  that  is  in  the  record. 

(Mr.  Moon's  letter  of  August  16,  1913,  was  marked 
'State's  Exhibit  9,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.';  and  the  statement 
was  marked  'State's  Exhibit  10,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.') 

Mr.  Deneen.  Now,  the  others  are  four  telegrams ;  no 
letters. 

The  Chairman.    Are  they  all  in  the  same  form? 

Mr.  "Whittaker.  All  in  the  same  form,  to  Mr.  Duke, 
2487  Mr  Gray,  Mr.  Arrison  and  Mr.  Pickler.  This  is  the 
form  of  the  telegram:  (Reading.)  'The  Illinois  Legis- 
lative Investigating  Committee  urgently  requests  you  to 


Ottumwa  Communications — Continued.  575 

appear  before  it  August  19tla,  at  nine  thirty  A.  M.,  to 
testify  regarding  the  affidavit  submitted  to  it  by  Edward 
E.  Marriott  and  also  any  knowledge  you  may  have  in 
relation  to  the  voting  machine  contract  made  between 
the  City  of  Chicago  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company.    Wire  answer.    Lucas  I.  Butts,  Chairman.' 

Mr.  Deneen.  I  ask  that  those  be  introduced  as  State 's 
Exhibits,  to  be  marked  consecutively.  Those  that  have 
not  already  been  marked. 

(Said  documents  were  marked  as  follows:) 

Copy  of  letter  to  Merrill  C.  Gillmore,  Aug.  16,  1913, 
was  marked  'State's  Exhibit  11,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.' 

Copy  of  letter  to  Hon.  E.  G.  Moon,  Aug.  16,  1913,  was 
marked  'State's  Exhibit  12,' 8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.' 

Copy  of  telegram  to  Merrill  C.  Gillmore,  Aug.  16,  1913, 
was  marked  'State's  Exhibit  13,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.' 

Copy  of  telegram  to  Hon.  Edwin  G.  Moon,  Aug.  16, 
1913,  was  marked  'State's  Exhibit  14,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.' 

Copy  of  telegram  to  L.  L.  Duke,  Aug.  16,  1913,  was 
marked  'State's  Exhibit  15,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.' 

Copy  of  telegram  to  John  W.  Gray,  Aug.  16,  1913,  was 
marked  'State's  Exhibit  16,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.' 

Copy  of  telegram  to  Newton  L.  Arrison,  Aug.  16,  1913, 
was  marked  'State's  Exhibit  17,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.' 

Copy  of  telegram  to  Thomas  H.  Pickler,  Aug.  16,  1913, 
was  marked  'State's  Exhibit  18,  8/20/13,  E.  J.  V.' 

2856  (Letter  addressed  by  Mr.  Thomas  H.  Pickler  to  Gov- 
ernor Deneen  is  here  introduced  in  evidence,  and  read 
as  follows : ) 

"Mr.  C.  S.  Deneen, 
Chicago,  111. 
My  Dear  Sir:  I  note  the  Chicago  papers  quote  Gray 
and  Arrison  as  saying  that  you  or  Mr.  Butts,  or  both 
of  you,  are  supposed  to  have  offered  us  two  thousand 
dollars  if  we  would  go  there  and  testify.  I  simply  desire 
to  say  that  so  far  as  I  am  concerned  you  never  intimated 
anything  regarding  paying  us  any  money  only  for  the 
contract  and  the  telephone  expense.  -Of  course,  if  you 
intimated  anything  of  the  kind  to  them  I  don't  know  it. 
Your  dealings  with  me  has  been  that  of  gentleman,  all 

2857  the  way  through.  It  seems  from  the  proceedings  at 
Ottumwa,  Gray,  Arrison  and  myself  is  creating  some 
excitement  and  notoriety.  Should  you  be  out  this  way 
do  not  fail  to  call.    Kind  regards  to  Mr.  Butts. 


576  Ottumwa  Communications — Continued. 

' '  This  is  not  intended  for  publication  unless  you  should 
want  a  statement  on  the  matter, 

"Respectfully, 

"T.  H.  PiCKLER." 

Letter  dated  August  15,  1913,  Sioux  City,  Iowa. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  That  should  be  marked.  Mark  it  the 
next  number.  State's  Exhibit." 

(Said  letter  was  marked  "State's  Exhibit  19,  8/20/13, 
E.  J.  v.") 

2860  The  Chairman  then  reads  the  following  statement  into 
the  record. 

"The  statements  in  the  affidavit  filed  with  the  Com- 
mittee by  Edward  E.  Marriott  are  false  in  so  far  as  they 
relate  to  Mr.  Deneen  and  myself.  The  facts  are,  when 
it  was  learned  that  a  written  contract  between  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company  and  Messrs.  Thomas  H. 
Piekler,  Newton  L.  Arrison  and  John  W.  Gray  had  been 
executed  for  $1,000,  it  was  determined  that  Mr.  Deneen 
and  myself  should  interview  the  witnesses  and  ascer- 
tain whether  or  not  they  would  be  willing  to  assign  the 
written  contract  to  the  Investigating  Committee  for  face 
value.  I  deemed  it  wise  that  the  Investigating  Commit- 
tee purchase  this  contract  in  behalf  of  the  State  of  Illi- 

2861  nois  so  that  suit  might  be  instituted  on  it  and  in  that 
way  an  opportunity  secured  to  take  depositions  in  other 
states  in  reference  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  contract. 

"Mr.  Piekler  favored  an  assignment  of  the  contract. 
Messrs.  Arrison  and  Gray  desired  to  consult  together 
and  communicate  with  Mr.  Piekler  before  giving  their 
decision.  Later,  Mr.  Piekler  stated  over  the  long  dis- 
tance telephone  that  the  money  had  been  paid  and  the 
contract  was  taken  up  at  Ottawa.  Our  negotiations,  there- 
fore, terminated  necessarily. 

"These  are  all  the  facts.  No  money  was  put  in  any 
national  bank  and  no  money  was  offered  to  witnesses 
save  their  expenses  and  the  face  value  of  the  contract." 

2863  Witness  Marriott  agrees  that  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  may  retain  in  his  custody  the  memoranda 
handed  by  the  witness  to  Mr.  Deneen. 

2869  The  introduction  of  the  minutes  of  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  relating  to  voting  machine  matter 
was  here  deferred  until  they  could  be  verified  by  Mr.  Czar- 
necki. 

2871-6  "The  Chairman.  Mr.  Czarnecki,  a  member  of  the 
Election  Commission  of  the  City  of  Chicago  will  read 


Referendum  Vote  on  Voting  Machines.  577 

the  record  on  the  referendum  vote  adopting  the  votes,  by 
wards. 

"Mr.  CzABNECKi.  I  read  from  the  record  of  a  specimen 
ballot  of  the  election  of  November  8,  1904.  The  specimen 
ballot  of  the  '  small  ballot, '  so  called.  The  following  was 
the  question  (it  was  the  third  question  on  that  ballot  at  that 
election) :  'the  proposed  adoption  of  voting  machines.' 
'For  adoption  of  voting  machines  as  provided  by  an  Act 
to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  Voting  Machines  at  Elections, 
for  casting,  registering,  recording  and  counting  ballots,  or 
votes,  also  creating  a  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commis- 
sioners and  defining  its  duties,  approved  May  14,  1903,  in 
force  July  1,  1903.'  'Yes,  on  the  proposition,  229,577 ;  no 
on  the  proposition,  27,081. '  That  was  the  memorandum  in 
the  specimen  ballot  record,  the  record  itself. 

' '  Mr.  Mitchell.  I  would  like  to  have  that  inserted  in  the 
record  ward  by  ward,  showing  that  each  ward  is  carried 
by  a  ratio  of  eight  or  ten  to  one. 

"The  Chairman.  The  Commissioner  will  please  read 
the  wards  for  and  against. 

"  Mr.  CzARNECKi.    Yes. 

"Mr.  Mitchell.  In  Mr.  Deneen's  own  ward  it  carried 
by  about  11  to  1. 

* '  Mr.  Deneen.  I  believe  you  said  more  frauds  were  com- 
mitted in  that  ward  than  in  any  other  ward  in  the  city.  I 
do  not  believe  it,  but  I  think  you  are  mistaken,  it  has  oc- 
curred while  I  was  away. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  That  was  the  reason  for  the  public 
sentiment  for  voting  machines. 

' '  Mr.  Deneen.  No,  I  think  you  will  find  our  ward  a  very 
good  ward,  no  doubt. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    It  has  been  good  for  about  eight  years. 

' '  Mr.  Deneen.    Well,  I  think  it  will  continue  being  good. 

"Mr.  CzAKNECKL  For  the  proposition  just  read  (read- 
ing) :  'In  the  1st  ward,  4,335;  against  the  proposition  in 
that  ward,  621 ;  2d  ward,  for  the  proposition,  6,203 ;  against 
the  proposition,  672 ;  3d  ward,  for  the  proposition,  6,940 
against  the  proposition,  627 ;  4th  ward,  for  the  proposition 
4,976 ;  against  it,  764 ;  5th  ward,  for  the  proposition,  4,460 : 
against  the  proposition,  763;  6th  ward,  for  the  proposi- 
tion 11,317 ;  against,  830 ;  7th,  for  the  proposition,  12,323 
against,  979 ;  8th  ward,  for  the  proposition,  4,403 ;  against 
the  proposition,  768 ;  9th  ward,  for  the  proposition,  4,414 
against  the  proposition,  451 ;  10th  ward,  for  the  proposi- 
tion, 3,900;  against  the  proposition,  644;  11th  ward,  for 


578  Testimony  of  R.  D.  Bemiss. 

the  proposition,  4,621;  against,  741;  12th  ward,  for  the 
proposition,  6,655;  against  the  proposition,  1,002;  13th 
ward,  for  the  proposition,  8,678 ;  against,  760 ;  14th  ward, 
for  the  proposition,  7,146;  against,  813;  15th  Avard,  for 
the  proposition,  6,539;  against,  794;  17th  ward,  for  the 
proposition,  5,119 ;  against,  761 ;  18th  ward,  for  the  propo- 
sition, 4,792 ;  against,  648 ;  19th  ward,  for  the  proposition, 
4,662 ;  against,  796 ;  20th  ward,  for  the  proposition,  9,132 ; 
against,  841 ;  21st  ward  for  the  proposition,  8,487 ;  against, 
884 ;  22d  ward,  for  the  proposition,  4,938 ;  against,  755 ;  23d 
ward,  for  the  proposition,  6,165 ;  against,  864 ;  24th  ward, 
for  the  proposition  5,462 ;  against,  898 ;  25th  ward,  for  the 
.  proposition,  12,232;  against,  1,020;  26th  ward,  for  the 
proposition,  7,495;  against,  869;  27th  ward,  for  the  propo- 
sition, 8,245 ;  against,  907 ;  28th  ward,  for  the  proposition, 
7,369 ;  against,  790 ;  29th  ward,  for  the  proposition,  4,077 ; 
against,  702 ;  30th  ward,  for  the  proposition,  6,098 ;  against, 
638;  31st  ward,  for  the  proposition,  8,262;  against,  832; 
32d  ward,  for  the  proposition,  8,383;  against,  850;  33d 
ward,  for  the  proposition,  6,151 ;  against,  828 ;  34th  ward, 
for  the  proposition,  5,527 ;  against,  596 ;  35th  ward,  for  the 
proposition,  5,726 ;  against,  567. 

"  *In  the  three  precincts  of  the  town  of  Cicero,  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Election  Board,  509  for  the  proposi- 
tion, 91  against  the  proposition.  The  total  of  the  above  is 
229,577  for  the  proposition,  27,081  against  the  proposi- 
tion.' " 

Volume  XXVI. 

Afternoon  Session. 
Tuesday,  April  21, 1914. 

E.  D.  Bemiss  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2881  Resides  at  4162  Clarendon  avenue,  Chicago.  Was  for- 
merly salesman  for  the  U.  S.  Standard  Voting  Machine 
Company  and  for  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company 
when  organized  and  during  its  existence. 

2882  Represented  the  Empire  Company  in  Indiana,  Iowa, 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire. 

The  witness'  compensation  as  salesman  for  the  U.  S. 


Empire  Co.  Clmnyes  Expense  Account  Methods.      579 

Standard  and  for  the  Empire  Company  was  $50  per  week 
and  expenses. 

2883  Witness  knew  Carl  Lomb,  president;  Lausterer  and 
Samuel  C.  Hamilton,  managers  of  the  Empire  Company. 

Payment  for  extra  services  of  men  assisting  salesmen  in 
the  sale  of  voting  machines  was  formerly  made  through 
the  salesman  on  bills  rendered  to  the  company  by  the 
salesmen,  "for  assistance,  so  much,"  "that  is  all." 

2884  This  method  was  changed  afterward  and  the  money  paid 
by  the  company  for  the  sale  of  voting  machines,  in  addi- 
tion to  salary  and  expense  account,  was  paid  to  the  sales- 
man in  the  form  of  a  lump  sum,  called  "commission"  for 
each  machine  sold. 

2885  Payment  for  outsiders  for  assistance  in  forming  ac- 
quaintance and  introducing  agents  to  public  officials  was 
now  paid  out  of  the  $135  and  not  by  the  company  direct  as 
formerly.  The  $135  was  a  commission  in  addition  to  the 
salary  and  expense  account. 

Whatever  the  agent  could  save  out  of  the  $135  belonged 
to  him  and  no  statement  was  ever  made  by  the  agent  to  the 
company  how  the  $1 35  or  any  part  of  it  was  spent. 

2886  When  the  method  was  changed,  Mr.  Lausterer  or  Mr. 
Hamilton,  or  both,  "thought  it  was  better  to  have  a  stipu- 
lated sum  paid  each  agent  and  that  ended  the  whole  trans- 
action," and  nothing  would  appear  on  the  books  of  the 
company  except  the  fact  that  the  agent  had  made  the  sale, 
his  salary  and  expense  account,  and  then,  in  addition  to 
these  items,  the  $135  per  machine. 

The  agent  made  such  arrangements  as  he  cared  to  make 
with  local  persons  for  influence  and  assistance. 

2887  Witness  knew  Harry  W.  Barr,  agent  for  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company. 

Mr.  Barr  talked  with  witness  about  the  commissions  for 
machines  the  agents  received  for  sales  and  said  that  he 
got  the  same. 

2889  The  witness  went  to  Boston  in  1912  on  voting  machine 
business  and  after  his  return  talked  with  Barr  in  Chicago 
about  commissions,  stating  that  $135  per  machine  was  not 
enough  for  Boston  and  Barr  said  he  did  not  think  it  was 
enough  for  Chicago. 

Mr.  Barr  talked  to  witness  about  selling  machines  to 
Chicago  in  addition  to  the  1,000  sold  by  him. 

2890  At  one  time  Barr  was  manager  for  the  Universal  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company  and  witness  then  worked  under 
Barr  and  sold  some  Universal  machines  at  Ottumwa,  Iowa. 


580  Testimony  of  R.  D.  Bemiss. 

"  Witness  understood  that  Barr  afterwards  tried  to  sell 
Empire  machines  to  Wapello  County  in  which  Ottumwa 
is. 

2891  Witness  knows  Ottumwa  residents,  Thomas  Pickler, 
who  was  mayor  when  witness  sold  the  Universal  Voting 
Machines,  Newton  Arrison,  who  was  city  clerk,  and  John 
Gray,  who  was  chief  of  police. 

2892  Witness  went  to  New  Hampshire  for  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company  to  secure  the  defeat  of  voting  machine 
legislation  supported  by  the  American  Voting  Machine 
Company  of  Boston,  "which  would  eliminate  or  cut  out 
every  other  voting  machine. ' '  Witness  stayed  there  until 
he  * '  had  them  cut  out. ' ' 

2893  Witness  never  saw  the  books  of  the  company  and  does 
not  know  what  appeared  on  the  books  concerning  money 
paid  to  people  other  than  regular  agents  of  the  company. 
In  reporting  such  payments  to  the  company  the  witness 
would  say  "assistance  in  landing  the  order,  so  much," 
and  would  not  give  the  names  of  the  men  with  whom  the 
money  was  paid.  Such  payments  were  never  itemized  and 
the  company  never  required  or  requested  that  they  be  item- 
ized. 

Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

2895  Witness  never  did  any  work  for  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company  in  Chicago. 

Direct  Examination  Resumed  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  has  met  Mr.  William  H.  Stuart,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Election  Commissioners  of  Chicago  when  in  Chicago 
two  or  three  days  demonstrating  the  voting  machine  when 
the  sale  was  on. 

Witness  may  have  made  the  remark  to  Stuart  during 
the  legislative  voting  machine  investigation  that  "I  did 
not  want  to  be  called  into  this  thing  at  all  and  that  I  had 
better  get  out  of  the  city,"  and  Mr.  Stuart  said,  "They 
could  not  do  anything  to  you  if  you  get  out  of  the  city. ' ' 

Cross-Examination  Resumed  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2896  ' '  Q.  Then  what  do  you  mean  by  'Assistance  in  landing 
orders,'  in  a  general  way?    A.    Well,  there  is  so  many  dif- 


Voters  From  20th  Precinct,  1st  Ward,  Testify.       581 

ferent  ways,  that  you  could  hardly  figure  that  out.  Very 
often  you  will  find  a  man  who  has  considerable  influence 
with  the  board  and  a  man  whose  opinion  is  looked  on  with 
respect  and  regard,  and  if  you  get  that  man  to  assist  you 
in  any  way  and  take  up  his  time  he  naturally  expects  to 
be  compensated  for  it,  wouldn't  he?" 

If  a  lawyer  was  employed  by  the  agent  his  fee  would  be 
taken  out  of  the  agent's  commission  of  $135. 

2897  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

The  same  was  true  if  the  agent  employed  anybody  else. 

"Q.  Did  you  limit  your  employment  to  attorneys  ?  A. 
Well,  we  called  them  attorneys. ' ' 

They  were  not  always  attorneys  in  law.  **Very  often 
a  political  boss  was  not  an  attorney." 


2899  James  Hamlin  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Besides  2414  Wentworth  avenue.  Is  a  voter  in  the  20th 
precinct  of  the  1st  ward  and  voted  on  the  voting  machine 
for  Cunnea  for  State 's  Attorney  at  the  election  of  1912. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2900  Witness  voted  a  straight  Socialist  ticket.  Witness 
pulled  down  the  little  lever  at  the  word  "Socialist,"  then 
went  out  and  supposed  the  machine  registered  his  vote. 
"I  tried  to  vote  a  straight  Socialist  ticket." 


B.  F.  Gkaham  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2902  Besides  at  46  West  18th  street.  In  the  last  presidential 
election  he  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward  on 
the  voting  machine  for  Cunnea. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  voted  a  split  ticket  and  thinks  he  pulled  down 

2903  the  lever  above  the  name  Cunnea  over  the  name.    Voted 


582  Voters  From  20th  Precinct — Continued. 

for  two  men,  Edward  F.  Dunne  and  Cunnea.    He  then 
opened  the  booth  and  walked  out. 

2905  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

When  the  witness  went  in  he  pulled  the  lever  that  closed 
the  booth  and  when  he  went  out  he  pulled  the  lever  and 
walked  out. 


Lincoln  Weaves  : 

2906  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  resides  at  29  West  17th  street.  In  the  presiden- 
tial election  of  1912  he  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st 
ward  on  the  voting  machine,  a  straight  Republican  ticket. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2907  Witness  voted  by  pulling  down  the  key  and  pulling  the 
big  lever  over. 

Peeey  Lillaed  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2909  Witness  resides  at  28  W^est  18th  street.  Voted  at  the 
presidential  election  of  1912  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st 
ward  on  voting  machine,  a  straight  Republican  ticket. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  pulled  down  the  little  lever  for  President  and 
one  for  Governor  and  then  pulled  the  lever  around. 

Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 
Witness  intended  to  vote  a  straight  Republican  ticket. 


Voters  From  20th  Precinct — Continued.  583 

William  Andeesox  : 

Direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

2911  Resides  at  1714  Dearborn  street.  At  the  presidential 
election  witness  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward 
on  the  voting  machine  for  Rinaker  as  State's  Attorney. 

Cr OSS-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  had  received  instructions  at  the  City  Hall  how 
to  vote  on  the  voting  machine. 

Albert  Pierce  : 

Direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

2917  Resides  at  33  West  17th  street.  At  the  presidential  elec- 
tion witness  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward  on 
the  voting  machine,  a  straight  Republican  ticket. 

Cr  OSS-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  had  visited  the  City  Hall  before  election  where 
they  were  demonstrating  voting  machines. 

Witness  voted  by  pulling  down  the  pointer  for  the  names 
he  wanted  to  vote  for.  He  pulled  back  the  lever  and  the 
curtains  opened. 

William  J.  Hamlin  : 

Direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

2922  Resides  at  2114  Wentworth  avenue.  At  the  presidential 
election  witness  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward 
on  the  voting  machine,  a  straight  Socialist  ticket. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2923  Witness  pulled  the  lever  for  the  straight  Socialist  ticket, 
then  pulled  the  big  lever  and  walked  out. 


584  Voters  From  20th  Precinct — Continued. 

Jacob  Gilbert  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2924  Resides  at  28  West  18th  street.  Voted  the  Republican 
ticket  on  the  voting  machine  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st 
ward  in  the  presidential  election. 

Witness  is  blind  and  was  helped  to  vote  by  the  judges  of 
election,  whom  he  told  how  he  wanted  to  vote. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  did  not  touch  the  machine,  just  stood  at  the  ma- 
chine and  the  man  sent  by  the  judges  cast  the  vote. 

A.  S.  Ford: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Resides  at  22  West  18th  street.  At  the  presidential  elec- 
tion of  1912,  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward  the  wit- 
ness voted  a  Progressive  ticket  on  the  voting  machine.  Mr. 
Haight  was  Progressive  candidate  for  State's  Attorney. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Had  voted  on  the  machine  at  the  previous  spring  elec- 
tion. 
2930    A  gentleman  from  the  Election  Commissioners'  oflSce 
was  in  the  polling  place  and  told  witness  how  to  vote. 

Witness  intended  to  vote  the  straight  Progressive  ticket 
and  pulled  the  lever  across  the  top  only  to  vote  the  straight 
Progressive  ticket.  The  curtains  were  not  closed  while  he 
cast  his  vote  on  the  machine. 

Witness  did  not  pull  down  any  small  lever.  A  represen- 
tative from  the  Election  Commissioners '  office  saw  witness 
vote. 

E.  H.  Ford: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2934  Resides  at  22  West  18th  street.  At  the  presidential  elec- 
tion he  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward  on  the 
voting  machine,  for  the  straight  Progressive  ticket. 


Voters  From  20th  Precinct — Continued.  585 

2935  Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  had  been  shown  how  to  vote  on  the  machine  at 
the  preceding  spring  election. 

Theodoke  Thomas  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2938  Resides  at  26  West  18th  street.  At  the  presidential  elec- 
tion he  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward  on  the 
voting  machine,  a  straight  Republican  ticket. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  witness  is  doorman  at  the  Sherman  Hotel.  Some- 
body went  into  the  booth  with  witness  and  showed  him  how 
to  vote.  Witness  voted  by  pulling  the  party-key  and  pull- 
ing the  big  lever  all  the  way  around. 

Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2943  A  man  was  in  the  polling  place  with  witness  when  wit- 
ness voted. 


John  Hildman  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2944  Resides  at  54  West  18th  street.  At  the  presidential  elec- 
tion of  1912  witness  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st 
ward  on  the  voting  machine  for  the  Democratic  ticket  ex- 
cept State's  Attorney,  witness  voting  for  Rinaker. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2945  A  gentleman  at  the  polling  place  gave  witness  instruc- 
tions how  to  vote  and  then  witness  voted.  Witness  pulled 
down  the  Rinaker  lever  first  and  then  the  individual  lever 
on  the  Democratic  party.  Voted  for  all  the  candidates,  for 
each  one. 


586  Letter  From  A.  M.  Lawrence. 

Leo  Lasxy  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2947  Witness  resides  at  42  West  18th  street.  At  the  presiden- 
tial election  of  1912  he  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the 
1st  ward  on  the  voting  machine  the  straight  Republican 
ticket, 

Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2948  The  witness  told  one  of  the  men  working  in  the  polling 
place  that  he  wanted  to  vote  the  straight  Republican  ticket 
and  this  man  did  the  voting  for  him.  The  witness  could  not 
read  or  write  good  enough. 

2949  Both  were  inside  of  the  machine  and  the  curtain  was 
open  when  the  witness  was  voting. 

2950  The  man  who  taught  the  witness  was  a  judge  of  election. 

2952  A  letter  from  Mr.  Andrew  Lawrence  addressed  to  the 
Butts  Committee  is  hereby  presented  to  the  committee  by 
Mr.  Keehn  and  read  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  as 
follows : 

' '  Chicago  Examiner, 
The  Paper  of  the  Home. 
Office  of  the 
President. 

Chicago,  April  21,  1914. 
Butts  Committee, 

Illinois  Legislature, 
Chicago,  Illinois. 
Gentlemen  : 

2953  Before  leaving  on  my  vacation  last  summer,  I  sent  my 
legal  representative  to  your  Committee  to  advise  you  that 
I  was  leaving  on  August  4th  for  California  where  I  ex- 
pected to  remain  until  October  1st.  He  advised  your  Com- 
mittee of  my  willingness  to  remain  in  Chicago  to  testify  at 
the  convenience  of  your  Committee  if  your  Committee  felt 
at  that  time  that  my  testimony  would  be  desired. 

I  am  informed  that  the  records  of  your  investigation 
show  that  Mr.  Keehn  was  advised  by  the  Chairman  of  your 
Committee  that  the  Committee  knew  of  no  reason  at  that 
time  why  my  presence  would  be  required.  Consequently,  I 
left  for  California  where  I  remained  until  September  27th. 
The  Committee  has  full  knowledge  of  what  transpired  in 


Voters  From  20th  Precinct — Continued.  587 

the  meantime  and  of  the  base  insinuations  that  were  placed 
on  those  occurrences  by  certain  partisan  newspapers. 

After  I  was  advised  by  telegraph  of  what  had  taken 
place,  I  immediately  prepared  an  aflSdavit  which  was 
sworn  before  Judge  Cabaniss  of  the  Superior  Court  at  San 
Francisco.    I  forwarded  it  at  once  to  your  Committee.    I 

2954  am  now  informed  that  this  document  reached  your  Com- 
mittee after  it  had  adjourned.  I  would  respectfully  re- 
quest that  this  affidavit  be  made  a  part  of  the  records  of 
your  investigation. 

I  want  to  express  my  willingness  to  appear  before  your 
Committee  at  the  convenience  of  the  Committee  and  sub- 
ject myself  to  any  inquiry  your  Committee  may  feel  dis- 
posed to  make.  If  I  can  in  any  way  do  anything  that  will 
lessen  the  burdens  of  your  labors  and  assist  in  completing 
your  investigation,  I  cheerfully  hold  myself  in  readiness  to 
appear  at  your  call. 

Respectfully  yours, 

(Signed)    A.  M.  Lawbence." 

Geoege  T.  S.  Brown  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2955  Witness  resides  at  1705  Dearborn  street.  At  the  presi- 
dential election  of  1912  he  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of.the 
1st  ward  on  the  voting  machine  the  straight  Eepublican 
ticket. 

Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2956  Witness  is  janitor  at  the  County  Hospital.  He  pulled 
down  the  lever  in  the  Republican  column  and  voted  the 
straight  ticket.  Pulled  the  big  lever  and  walked  out.  In 
voting,  the  witness  followed  a  specimen  ballot. 

Chables  Bergstrom  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2959  Witness  resides  at  1706  South  State  street.  At  the  pres- 
idential election  of  1912  he  voted  on  the  voting  machine  a 
split  ticket.   He  voted  for  Cunnea  for  State 's  Attorney. 


588  Voters  From  20th  Precinct — Continued. 

Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2960  The  witness  voted  for  Dunne,  Cunnea  and  the  President. 
Witness  pulled  down  the  keys  but  didn't  pull  the  big  lever. 

2963  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  does  not  remember  pulling  the  big  lever.  He 
pushed  the  curtains  aside  on  going  in.  The  curtains  were 
closed  when  witness  went  into  the  machine. 

Witness  intended  to  vote  for  Cunnea  for  State's  Attor- 
ney and  thinks  he  did  according  to  the  instructions  given 
him  by  a  man  in  the  polling  place. 

John  Wdlliams  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2966  Witness  resides  at  33  West  17th  street.  At  the  presi- 
dential election  he  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st 
ward  the  straight  Republican  ticket. 

Cr  OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

2967  Witness  voted  on  the  machine.  He  voted  for  Taft  and 
Einaker.  He  pulled  the  lever  on  top  back  and  pulled  the 
keys  for  the  men  he  voted  for. 

Witness  read  the  names  of  his  candidates  before  voting. 
He  pulled  three  keys :    Deneen,  Taft  and  Einaker. 

Witness  does  not  remember  whether  he  pushed  the  keys 
back  after  pulling  them  dowTi.  Witness  knows  he  pulled  the 
keys  down. 

2970  Witness  saw  a  man  put  the  machine  up  and  the  machine 
was  in  the  polling  place  a  long  time. 

John  Bkanlett: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2971  Witness  resides  at  604  Ada  street.  At  the  presidential 
election  of  1912  witness  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the 
1st  ward  on  the  machine,  a  straight  Republican  ticket. 


Voters  From  20th  Precinct — Continued.  589 

2972  Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  never  voted  on  a  machine  before  and  Eddie  Wil- 
liams instructed  witness  how  to  vote.  Williams  did  the 
votinsr.   Witness  asked  for  assistance. 


2974  James  La  Gkaza  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Eesides  at  1728  Wabash  avenue.  At  the  presidential 
election  he  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward  on  the 
machine,  a  straight  Republican  ticket. 

2975  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  people  in  the  polling  place  showed  him  how  to  vote 
and  witness  thought  he  voted  the  Republican  ticket. 

James  Duncan  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2976  Resides  at  1619  Federal  street.  At  the  presidential  elec- 
tion the  witness  voted  in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward 
on  the  machine.  He  voted  a  split  ticket  for  Roosevelt  and 
Martin  B.  Madden.    He  did  not  vote  for  State's  Attorney. 

Volume  XXVII. 

Morning  Session, 
Wednesday,  April  22,  1914. 

H.  B.  Meinhart  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2981  Resides  at  2141  Archer  avenue.  At  the  presidential  elec- 
tion, 1912,  witness  voted  in  the  24th  precinct  of  the  1st 
ward,  but  does  not  know  whether  he  voted  on  the  machine 
or  the  papfer  ballot.  Witness  remembers  that  it  was  when 
Rinaker,  Cunnea  and  Hoyne  ran  for  State's  Attorney,  he 
voted  on  the  machine.  He  thinks  he  voted  for  Rinaker  for 
State's  Attorney. 


590  Witness'  Czarnecki  on  the  Recount. 

2983  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  has  not  a  clear  recollection  about  voting. 

2984  Mr.  Deneen  here  states  that  he  expects  to  call  ten  wit- 
nesses to  testify  that  they  voted  on  the  machine  in  the  24th 
precinct  of  the  1st  ward  and  that  the  machine  only  showed 
seven  votes  cast  on  the  machine,  but  not  having  all  the  wit- 
nesses at  hand  he  suggests  that  the  testimony  of  the  ten 
witnesses  before  the  grand  jury  be  admitted. 

This  matter,  however,  is  allowed  to  pass  for  the  time 
being. 

Anthony  Czabnecki,  previously  sworn,  resumes  stand : 
Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2986  The  witness  identifies  the  minutes  of  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners,  regarding  the  purchase  of  voting  ma- 
chines, which  are  then  introduced  in  evidence. 

The  witness  is  handed  a  tally  containing  the  recount  of 
the  ballots  in  the  1912  election  in  the  contest  of  Cunnea 
versus  Hoyne.    First  ward,  second  precinct. 

2987  This  tally-sheet  was  made  during  the  recount  of  the 
State's  Attorney's  vote  under  Judge  Baldwin  and  made  at 
the  storage  warehouse  where  the  voting  machines  were 
stored. 

The  Election  Commissioners'  office  furnished  the  cler- 
ical assistance  and  the  recount  was  made  in  the  presence 
of  Judge  Baldwin  part  of  the  time  and  part  of  the  time  in 
the  presence  of  all  the  Election  Commissioners  and  part  of 
the  time  in  the  presence  of  two  of  them.  The  reading  of 
the  figures  was  done  by  the  witness. 

Mr.  Hoff,  custodian  of  the  machines,  and  Mr.  Stuart, 
clerk  of  the  Election  Commissioners,  were  there  nearly  all 
the  time,  and  this  applies  as  to  all  the  tally-sheets  before 
the  witness  of  the  ten  wards  in  which  the  voting  machines 
were  used. 

Representatives  of  the  contestants  were  also  present 
and  watched  the  reading  of  the  figures  by  witness  and  kept 
a  tally  of  their  own. 
2989    No  question  has  ever  been  raised  as  to  the  accuracy  of 
these  figures. 

Judge  Baldwin  has  the  official  set  of  tally-sheets;  the 
tally-sheets  show  the  number  on  the  key  for  State's  At- 


Testimony  of  H.  E.  Hoff,  Custodian.  591 

torney,  the  machine  number,  the  protective  counter  and 
the  public  counter. 

2990  Also  the  seal  number. 

The  record  of  the  protective  counter  was  probably  taken 
from  the  record  in  possession  of  Mr.  Hoff.  The  seal  num- 
bers were  taken  from  the  machines  themselves  on  the  vot- 
ing lever  and  were  read  directly  from  the  seal  on  the  ma- 
chines in  the  warehouse. 

2991  Witness  refers  to  tally-sheets  for  the  35th  precinct  of 
the  1st  ward.  Seal  number  5924,  resealed,  372.  Resealing 
might  not  mean  that  the  original  seal  was  open  when  found 
at  the  recount,  but  that  its  condition  was  such  that  reseal- 
ing was  deemed  necessary.  What  witness  says  applies  to 
the  condition  of  the  seal  on  February  10,  1913,  when  the 
recount  of  this  precinct  was  taken.  The  resealing  was 
done  at  the  contest  and  in  the  presence  of  all  parties. 

2993  The  tally-sheets  produced  by  the  witness  are  here  of- 
fered in  evidence. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  The  seals  referred  to  were  the  seals  on 
the  curtain-lever.  The  curtain-lever  has  a  lock  on  it ;  none 
of  these  locks  was  out  of  order  and  none  was  open. 

Hakey  E.  Hoff  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

2996  Resides  at  2712  FuUerton  avenue.  Witness  has  been 
clerk  in  the  Election  Commissioners'  ofSce  for  the  last 
three  years.  He  has  charge  of  the  voting  machines  at 
the  Pugh  Terminal  Warehouse. 

2997  The  record  of  "protective  counter"  was  taken  from 
the  machines  as  they  were  sent  out  to  the  precinct. 

The  witness  had  no  means  of  knowing  the  protective 
counter  record  after,  as  the  machines  are  locked  up  in  the 
box  and  never  touched  until  the  recount. 

2998  No  record  of  the  recount  was  kept  by  the  witness  or 
for  his  use. 

The  witness  had  nothing  to  do  with  changing  the  seals 
while  they  were  in  his  custody  between  the  date  of  the 
election  and  the  recount. 

2999  The  judges  and  clerks  of  election  were  supposed  to  put 
the  seals  on  the  machines  found  on  them  at  the  recount. 

No  seals  were  placed  on  the  machines  after  they  were 
returned  to  the  custody  of  the  witness. 


592  Preparation  of  Machines  for  Elections. 

3001  About  200  machines  were  used  before  the  election  for 
exhibition  purposes. 

Before  the  election  men  were  sent  out  by  the  Election 
Commissioners  to  reset  these  machines  and  to  make  a 
record  after  all  the  counters  had  been  turned  back  to  zero. 
This  resetting  of  the  machines  was  made  in  the  precincts. 

Machines  were  used  for  exhibition  purposes.  Some  of 
these  machines  were  brought  back  to  the  warehouse  be- 
fore they  were  sent  out  for  use  in  election  precincts.  If 
a  machine  was  to  be  used  in  a  nearby  precinct,  sometimes 
it  was  not  returned  to  the  warehouse,  but  removed  di- 
rectly to  the  precinct  after  the  protective  counter  record 
had  been  taken  off  by  an  employee  of  the  Election  Com- 
missioners' office  and  the  report  made  and  record  kept 

3002  of  it  in  a  book  at  the  warehouse. 

No  one  representing  the  Election  Commissioners '  office 
or  candidates  was  present  at  the  resetting  of  voting  ma- 
chines in  these  precincts  except  the  man  who  reset  them. 
He  went  from  polling  place  to  polling  place  to  do  the 
work. 

3003  "Q.  Were  all  the  machines  used  in  the  ten  wards  in 
the  election  of  November  5,  1912,  taken  from  the  storage 
warehouse?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.    AH  of  them?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  I  will  ask  you,  for  the  purpose  of  refreshing  your 
recollection,  what  about  150  of  them  taken  from  the 
basement  of  the  City  Hall  ?  A.  Well,  I  think  at  that  par- 
ticular election  we  had  150  of  them  in  the  basement  of 
the  City  Hall." 

3004  The  witness  had  custody  of  the  machines  at  both  places 
and  had  33  men  under  him  to  handle  500  machines.    Wit- 

3005  ness  does  not  know  how  these  men  were  appointed  or 
what  were  their  politics. 

3006  The  men  who  reset  the  machines  in  the  precinct  where 
they  had  been  used  for  exhibition  purposes  put  a  seal  on 
them  and  locked  them.  A  record  of  this  seal  was  kept 
at  the  warehouse. 

The  keys  were  returned  by  this  man  to  the  City  Hall  to 
be  given  out  to  the  judges  and  clerks  of  election  when 
they  came  for  their  supplies. 

The  warehouse  was  designated  by  the  Election  Com- 
missioners as  the  place  for  storing  machines  and  witness 
does  not  know  why  the  machines  were  stored  in  the  City 
Hall  basement;  witness  thinks,  to  save  expense,  and  be- 

3007  lieves  that  the  idea  of  storing  some  machines  in  the 


Testimony  of  H.  E.  Hoff.  593 

County  Building  to  save  expense  was  entertained  by  the 
Election  Commissioners. 

After  election  all  machines  were  returned  to  the  ware- 
house. 

Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  is  a  mechanic  with  shop  and  factory  training. 
He  has  always  been  in  custody  of  machines  since  con- 
nected with  the  Election  Commissioners'  office.  "Witness 
is  a  Eepublican. 

Witness  was  in  charge  of  the  grouping  of  voting  ma- 
chines for  each  election  and  this  was  done  after  witness 
had  received  from  the  Election  Commissioners  a  certified 
copy  of  the  official  ballot  showing  who  were  to  be  the 
candidates  of  the  various  bodies. 

3009  From  the  official  ballot  an  assembler's  card  was  pre- 
pared by  the  witness,  proof-read  several  times,  and  fur- 
nished to  the  men  who  did  the  actual  work  of  assembling 
the  machines  for  the  election.  The  assembler  then  fills 
out  his  assembler's  card,  which  is  then  marked  with  the 
ward  and  precinct  and  sent  to  the  office. 

3010  The  machine  is  then  examined  by  another  man  known 
as  an  "examiner,"  who  fills  and  makes  a  report  of  the 
result  of  his  examination  on  another  blank,  which  is 
proof-read  against  the  assembler's  card. 

The  assembler  has  all  the  keys  to  the  voting  machine, 
and  upon  finishing  his  work  locks  the  lock  "0,"  locking 
all  the  little  wheels  and  counters  in  the  counter  compart- 
ment. 

The  examiner  has  the  same  keys  except  the  one  to 
lock  "0." 

3011  An  entry  is  made  in  a  record-book  at  the  warehouse, 
giving  the  name  of  the  assembler  and  examiner,  the  num- 
ber of  the  machine,  the  protective  counter  and  the  seal 
number  as  the  machine  is  before  it  goes  to  the  polling 
place. 

After  the  examination  of  the  machine  is  completed  by 
the  examiner,  he  locks  it,  puts  on  a  seal  of  whose  number 
he  makes  a  record,  and  turns  it  over  to  the  packers. 

3012  The  seal  so  placed  on  the  machine  by  the  examiner,  and 
recorded,  is  fastened  around  what  they  call  the  curtain- 
lever. 

The  voting  machine  has  a  lock.  No.  1,  a  padlock,  which 
locks  the  handle  of  the  curtain-lever. 


594  The  Citstodian's  Record. 

3013  The  machine  has  five  locks  in  all.  Three  keys  go  to  the 
judges  and  clerks  of  election,  namely,  the  keys  to  lock 
No.  1,  the  voting  or  curtain-lever  lock;  lock  No.  2,  also 
locking  the  curtain-lever  and  entrance  knob,  and  lock  No. 
3,  the  key  to  the  counter  compartment. 

The  other  two  keys  are  put  away  in  the  vault  in  the 
City  Hall. 

AH  the  keys  leave  the  possession  of  the  custodian  after 
the  machines  are  locked  and  sealed,  that  is,  as  soon  as 
the  examiner  gets  through. 

3014  In  case  error  appears  between  the  assembler  and  the 
examiner,  the  machine  is  examined  and  the  error  cor- 
rected. 

The  keys  sent  to  the  judges  and  clerks  of  election  are 
sent  in  an  envelope  along  with  their  supplies,  on  which 
envelope  is  marked  the  protective  counter  number. 

The  judges  are  cautioned  to  see  that  this  number  cor- 
responds with  that  actually  on  the  machine  before  they 
open  it. 

3016  The  evening  before  election  the  judges  are  instructed 
to  open  the  supplies,  examine  the  machine  and  compare 
the  ballot  on  the  machine  with  the  sample  furnished  them 
by  the  Election  Commissioners. 

The  morning  of  the  election  they  are  instructed  to  open 
the  back  of  the  machine  and  see  that  all  counters  are 
standing  at  three  zeroes  and  the  public  counter  at  three 
zeroes,  of  which  they  make  a  record  on  certificate  num- 
ber 3. 

They  also  make  a  record  of  the  protective  counter,  of 
the  candidate  counters  and  the  public  counter. 

3017  At  the  close  of  election  they  are  instructed  to  make  a 
record  of  the  public  counter,  the  protective  counter  and 
candidate  counters,  lock  the  machine  and  return  the  keys 
to  the  Election  Commissioners. 

3018  The  machines  are  then  returned  to  the  warehouse  as 
fast  as  possible,  the  aim  being  to  have  them  in  the  ware- 
house by  midnight  the  night  of  the  election,  and  the  police 
officer  at  the  polling  place  is  instructed  to  remain  there 
until  the  machine  is  taken  away. 

This  is  not  always  done  and  sometimes  the  machines 
are  not  all  in  by  midnight,  but  a  record  is  kept  of  the  re- 
turning of  the  machine. 

3019  This  record  shows  the  number  of  the  machine,  the  ward 
and  precinct  number,  the  name  of  the  driver,  the  time  and 
the  name  of  the  man  who  received  it. 


Judges'  Instructions.  595 

The  judges  are  also  instructed  at  the  close  of  the  elec- 
tion to  place  a  seal  furnished  them  by,  and  numbered  and 
embossed  with  the  Election  Commissioners'  initials  on 
the  voting  machine,  locking  the  curtain-lever,  and  to  make 
a  record  of  the  seal  and  number. 

Witness  has  never  seen  the  records  of  such  seals  and 
numbers  made  by  the  Election  Commissioners. 

3020  When  the  machine  is  returned  to  the  warehouse  it  has 
two  different  locks  on  it  and  the  seals. 

The  machines  sent  from  the  City  Hall  were  returned 
to  the  warehouse.  Witness  does  not  know  why  this  was 
done  except  that  nobody  spoke  or  thought  about  return- 
ing them  to  the  City  Hall. 

3021  At  the  City  Hall,  some  trouble  w^as  had  with  the  jan- 
itor about  the  voting  machines  during  the  time  they  were 
being  prepared  for  and  sent  out  to  the  election  precincts. 
This  may  have  been  another  reason. 

3023  Machines  are  taken  out  of  the  cases  and  set  up  by 
three  men  employed  at  the  warehouse.  Thirty-nine  ma- 
chines have  been  taken  out  by  them  in  30  minutes. 

The  assembler  can  set  a  machine  for  an  election  like 
that  of  1912  in  7  minutes.    Ten  minutes  is  allowed  him. 
The  examiner  examined  a  machine  in  5  minutes. 

3024  Three  men  will  set  up  a  machine  in  a  polling  place  in 
less  than  two  minutes.  The  machines  are  transported 
for  $3  the  round  trip. 

The  machine  cannot  be  jarred  out  of  order.  Tests  of 
this  have  been  made  by  dropping  the  machine  from  the 
back  of  a  piano  wagon  two  feet  to  the  ground. 

3025  No  vote  is  recorded  on  the  machine  if  the  voting  lever 
is  pulled  down  and  put  back,  or  is  not  pulled  down,  or  if 
it  cannot  be  moved  because  of  wiring,  wedging  or  tying. 

3026  The  witness  does  not  consider  wires,  wedges  and  rub- 
ber bands  a  practical  method  of  fraud  at  elections,  be- 

3027  cause  the  voter  would  notice  them  and  complain  about  it. 

3028  Cr OSS-Examination  hy  Mr.  Mitchell. 

The  witness  has  never  heard  of  the  actual  use  of  any 
such  device  to  defraud  the  voter  of  a  vote. 

In  addition  to  the  two  minutes  for  setting  up  the  ma- 
chine at  the  polling  place,  it  might  take  two  minutes  to 
roll  the  machine  across  the  sidewalk,  four  minutes  in  all, 
and  the  teamsters  should  not  spend  more  than  five  min- 


596      Witness  Thinks  Voting  Lever  Seal  Unnecessary. 

utes  at  a  polling  place,  except  under  circumstances  of 
special  difficulty. 

3029  Witness  has  suggested  to  Election  Commissioners  that 
the  seal  is  not  necessary.  It  is  no  essential  part  of  the 
machine. 

3030  Witness  also  thinks  that  the  men  who  testify  to  voting 
in  the  20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward  might  have  lost  their 
vote  by  failure  in  various  ways  to  work  properly  the 
voting  mechanism. 

3031  Witness  states  that  "there  have  not  been  any  frauds 
by  the  use  of  voting  machines." 

3034  (The  certificate  of  incorporation  of  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company  was  here  read  into  the  record  and  is 
found  at  page  3034  to  page  3039  of  the  record.) 

(The  certificate  changing  the  business  office  of  the  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company  from  Rochester,  New 
York,  to  Jamestown,  New  York,  was  also  read  into  the 
record,  to  be  found  at  page  3039  to  page  3045  of  the  rec- 
ord.) 

(Also  certificate  of  payment  of  one-half  of  the  capital 
stock  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  is  read 
into  the  record,  which  is  found  at  pages  3046  to  3050  of 
the  record.) 

Afternoon  Session. 
Wednesday,  April  22, 1914. 

Haeky  E.  Hoff  resumes  the  stand: 

3051  Redirect  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

With  a  seal  placed  on  the  machine,  it  cannot  be  opened 
without  breaking  the  seal,  and  cannot  be  sealed  by  a  seal 
of  the  same  number,  unless  the  parties  resealing  are 
wanting  to  commit  a  crime. 

3053  The  judges  and  clerks  were  required  to  certify  to  the 
number  of  the  seal  at  the  election  of  1912.  ' '  It  was  simply 
a  form  that  we  fell  into  at  that  first  election ;  that  was  the 
first  election  we  had  a  big  election  on  the  machine;  but 
afterwards  we  saw  it  was  useless. " 

3055  The  witness  thinks  the  machine  cannot  be  manipulated, 
but  was  present  at  the  hearing  when  22  votes  were  cast 
for  Rinaker. 

Witness  also  saw,  on  the  same  occasion,  votes  cast  for 
Rinaker  transferred  to  Mr.  Hoyne  on  the  voting  machine. 


Witness'  Opinion  of  Voting  in  20th  Precinct.        597 

3056  Witness  doubts  whether  the  man  who  testified  to  vot- 
ing for  Rinaker  went  into  the  machine  and  voted. 

3057  Witness  is  asked  as  to  the  voters  who  had  the  assist- 
ance of  election  judges  in  voting  on  the  machine,  and  re- 
plies :  ' '  One ;  they  said  one ;  and  there  should  be  two 
judges  go  in  with  them,  or  two  persons  of  the  board,  of 
opposite  parties." 

3059  If  a  voter  went  into  the  machine  and  the  machine  did 
not  register  his  vote  there  would  be  no  check  on  the  ma- 
chine to  show  that  fact.  The  protective  counter  would 
show  that  some  man  was  at  the  machine,  but  would  not 
identify  him. 

Only  about  100  machines  were  adjusted  at  the  ware- 
house before  the  election  of  1912.  The  others  were  ad- 
justed at  the  various  precincts  and  at  the  City  Hall. 

The  machines  were  in  the  City  Hall  for  a  few  weeks 
before  the  election.  The  experimental  machines  were 
out  in  the  city  two  or  three  weeks. 

3061  Only  one  machine  was  in  a  ward  where  the  machine  was 
not  used  in  the  election.    That  was  the  3d  ward. 

3062  Witness  does  not  remember  a  report  in  the  newspapers 
that  no  machines  from  the  2d  ward  had  been  returned  by 
midnight  and  does  not  remember  whether  they  were  re- 
turned or  not. 

Witness  does  not  remember  that  some  machines  in  the 
6th  and  7th  wards  were  not  returned  for  26  to  36  hours 
after  election. 

Witness  thinks  there  is  a  record  of  the  time. 

3065  Witness  remembers  once  the  voting  machines  were 
transported  for  $3  a  round  trip ;  another  time  $5  a  round 
trip,  and  is  not  positive  that  there  was  ever  a  charge  of 
$3  each  way. 

The  Election  Commissioners  begin  sending  out  ma- 
chines to  polling  places  about  3  days  before  election. 

3066  Five  dollars  per  day,  witness  thinks,  was  paid  for  the 
rent  of  polling  places.  The  registration  is  $5;  regular 
elections,  $5 ;  special  elections,  $7 ;  and  in  1912  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  got  special  permission  from  each 
polling  place  to  leave  the  machine  extended  time  without 
charge. 

3067-8  The  machine  is  not  disarranged  by  jarring,  and  a 
fraudulent  arrangement  of  the  machine  with  clips,  wires, 
bands,  and  so  forth,  would  not  be  upset  by  jarring  if  put 
on  tight  enough;  neither  would  counters  set  back  20  be 
set  right  or  differently  by  jarring. 


598        Frauds  by  Wire  Clips,  Etc.,  Not  "Pra<^ical" 

3069  Witness  does  not  think  that  clips,  wires,  bands,  and  so 
forth  are  practical  means  of  fraud. 

3070  Witness  saw  the  machine  in  the  room  record  inaccu- 
rately the  votes  cast  as  the  result  of  manipulation  inside 
and  outside  the  machine. 

3071  If  persons  had  facilities  for  doing  it,  machines  might 
be  made  to  record  falsely  the  votes  cast. 

3072  It  could  not  have  been  done  on  the  machine  used  in  the 
20th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward;  without  the  keys  nobody 
can  manipulate  the  machine  after  they  are  returned  to 
the  warehouse  from  the  election  precinct.  The  keys  are 
kept  in  the  vault  and  William  Curran  has  charge  of  the 
vault. 

3073  A  custodian  could  place  paper  zeroes  over  the  counters 
and  the  judges  of  election  could  not  discover  them  from 
an  examination  of  the  machine. 

3077  When  the  machines  are  sent  out  all  the  counters  show 
zeroes.  These  are  not  changed  by  the  judges  of  election. 
Simply  examine  the  machines  to  see  that  the  counters 
show  zeroes. 

All  voting  machines  might  be  so  set  by  a  dishonest  offi- 
cial as  to  show  zeroes  and  they  would  look  all  right  to 
the  judges,  though  they  might  be  100  off. 

3078  But  you  would  have  to  move  the  counter-wheels  and 
add  one  more  to  the  protective  counter  doing  it.  This, 
however,  the  judges  could  not  detect,  as  it  is  never 
opened. 

The  public  counter  is  set  at  zero  after  each  election. 

3079  When  the  machine  is  operated  and  the  counter-wheels 
turned,  the  paper  zeroes  fall  off  into  the  grouping  com- 
partment. A  new  counter  with  two  zeroes  in  place  of  a 
zero  and  a  one,  might  be  used. 

3080  The  machine,  however,  is  voted  eleven  times  before  it 
is  sent  out  of  the  warehouse  and  so  this  attempt  at  fraud 
would  be  discovered.  It  would  be  discovered  by  the  man 
who  had  custody  of  the  machines,  but  the  public  would 
not  know  it. 

3081  "Mr.  McEwEN.  This  would  assume  that  the  judges 
and  clerks  in  all  the  precincts  in  the  city  failed  to  dis- 
cover it;  also  the  watchers  for  the  different  parties,  and 
that  none  of  the  custodians  checked  up  on  the  protective 
counter. ' ' 

The  fact  that  the  manipulation  of  machines  by  a  cus- 
todian cannot  be  discovered  by  the  judges  or  public  ap- 
plies to  any  machine  that  was  ever  built. 


Testimony  of  Lawrence  F.  King.  599 

Theodore  DePalma  : 

3082  Direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

Besides  at  144  West  22nd  street.  Voted  in  the  24th 
precinct  of  the  1st  ward  at  the  presidential  election  of 
1912  on  the  voting  machine,  a  straight  Progressive  ticket. 

3083  Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  voter  pulled  down  the  pointer  for  Roosevelt  half 
way,  about,  pulled  the  voting-lever  and  walked  out. 

Chables  Stumpf: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

3085  Resides  1702  Wabash  avenue.  Voted  at  the  presiden- 
tial election  1912  on  the  voting  machine,  a  straight  Re- 
publican ticket. 

3086  Cr  OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  pulled  the  lever  at  the  top  according  to  in- 
structions. He  cannot  recall  Avhat  lever  he  pulled,  but 
saw  the  name  William  Howard  Taft  there. 

3087  Witness  left  the  lever'  down  after  pulling  it,  then 
opened  the  curtain  by  pulling  the  lever,  and  walked  out. 

Lawrence  F.  King: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

3088  Resides  at  3173  Archer  avenue.  Is  Deputy  Clerk  of 
the  Circuit  Court,  connected  with  Judge  Baldwin's  court, 
and  special  commissioner  custodian  of  data  in  connection 
with  the  contest  over  the  office  of  State's  Attorney  in  the 
election  of  1912. 

3089  Witness  produces  judges'  certificates  of  election  con- 
cerning voting  machines  used  in  the  election  of  1912. 

(Note:  Mr.  Czarnecki  produces  tally-sheets  showing 
recount  as  taken  off  the  voting  machines  at  the  ware- 
house during  the  recount  of  the  votes  cast  for  State's 


600  Seals  on  Voting  Machines  Changed. 

Attorney.  The  judges'  certificates  produced  by  Witness 
King  show  the  number  of  the  voting  macliines,  the  num- 
.  ber  of  the  wards  and  precincts  in  which  the  voting  ma- 
chine was  used,  the  protective  counter  record  before  and 
after  election,  the  public  counter  record  after  election  and 
the  number  of  the  seal  placed  on  the  voting  machine  by 
the  judges  at  the  close  of  election.  The  recount  tally- 
sheets  produced  by  Commissioner  Czarnecki  show  the 
same  data  with  the  differences  as  testified  to  by  the  wit- 
ness and  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  as  follows:) 

Thirty-fifth  precinct  of  the  1st  ward.  Commissioner 
Czarnecki  (recount)  seal  number  5,924,  re-seal  372.  Wit- 
ness King,  seal  number  352. 

3090  The  judges  and  clerks  of  election  put  on  seal  number 
352,  the  seal  found  on  the  seal  at  the  time  the  recount 
was  made  was  number  5,924. 

3091  ''Mr.  McEwEN.    Do  you  claim  any  other  discrepancies? 
"Mr.  Deneen.     We  have  this  series  of  mistakes;  we 

have  107  seals  that  were  changed,  or  that  were  changed 
after  they  left  the  judges." 

There  were  107  changes  after  they  left  the  judges  and 

.3092  clerks.    The  changes  were  made  in  the  seals. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Or  where  the  judges  might  have  made 
a  niistake  in  returning  the  number,  as  indicated  here. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  After  the  judges  certified  to  the  number, 
that  particular  number  that  they  put  on  the  machine  was 
found.  The  process  has  been  testified  to  by  Mr.  Hoff 
over  and  over  again  that  they  were  put  in  the  cases  and 
put  in  the  warehouse  and  kept  there  30  days  unless  there 
was  a  contest,  and  if  there  was  a  contest  they  were  kept 
there  until  they  were  opened  by  order  of  the  court,  and 
when  they  were  opened  by  order  of  the  court,  they  estab- 
lished these  discrepancies." 

I  "The  Witness.    There  has  been  a  check  made  against 

the  record  of  the  recount  taken  off  by  Commissioner 
Czarnecki.  It  was  made  by  Special  State's  Attorney 
John  A.  Northup  during  the  investigation. 

3093  "Mr.  McEwen.  This  form  of  discrepancy  between  the 
judges'  certificates  as  to  the  number  of  seals  and  the 

'  seals  found  on  the  machines  at  the  time  of  the  recount 
would  necessitate  checking  every  precinct,  taking  a 
week's  time  of  the  committee." 

Mr.  McEwen  is  willing  to  have  the  matter  taken  up 
before  a  notary  public  or  a  commissioner  to  save  the  time 
of  the  committee. 


Discrepancies  in  Seal  Numbers.  601 

3097  "Witness  King.  The  8tli  precinct  of  the  1st  ward;  the 
judges '  and  clerks '  certificates,  seal  number  40 ;  Mr.  Czar- 
necki,  recount  record  of  the  same  machine,  seal  num- 
ber 745,  reseal,  860. 

Mr.  King.  Thirteenth  precinct  of  the  1st  ward,  the 
judge's  certificate,  seal  number  901;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  844. 

3098  Mr.  King.  Seventeenth  precinct  of  the  1st  ward; 
judge's  certificate,  seal  number  886;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  83. 

Mr.  King.  Twenty-ninth  precinct  of  the  1st  ward, 
judge's  certificate,  seal  number  906;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  2478. 

Witness  King.  Thirtieth  precinct  of  the  1st  ward, 
judge's  certificate,  seal  number — 

3099  (Witness,  continuing:)  The  judges  of  election  in  ma- 
chine precincts  have  3  certificates,  certificate  number  1 
shows  the  machine  number,  whether  the  protective  regis- 
tered zero  and  what  the  protective  counter  registers. 
Certificate  number  2,  filled  out  the  night  before  election, 
identifying  the  machine  by  showing  the  same  machine 
number.  Certificate  number  3  showing  the  number  of 
the  machine  again,  but  filled  out  after  the  polls  are  closed. 

3101  Mr.  King.  The  31st  precinct  of  the  1st  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  827 ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  2499. 

3102  Thirty-second  precinct  of  the  1st  ward;  judge's  certifi- 
cate, seal  number  2403 ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  recount 
seal  number  2463. 

Mr.  King.  Seventh  precinct  of  the  2nd  ward,  judge's 
certificate  seal  number  995 ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  734. 

Mr.  King.  Twelfth  precinct  of  the  2nd  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  365;  Commissioner  Czarnecki, 
seal  number,  recount,  789. 

Witness  King,  answering  a  question  of  Mr.  McEwen, 
states  that  he  thinks  the  seals  were  placed  on  the  ma- 
chine after  the  election. 
3104  Mr.  King.  The  13th  precinct  of  the  2nd  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  31;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  678. 

Seventeenth  precinct  of  the  2nd  ward,  judge's  certifi- 
cate, seal  number  374;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  num- 
ber 748. 

Mr.  King.     Second  precinct  of  the  6th  ward,  judge's 


602  Seal  Discrepancies — Continued. 

certificate,  seal  number  340 ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  2447. 

Mr.  King.  Nineteenth  precinct  of  the  6th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  329 ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  2490. 

Witness  King.  Twenty-first  precinct  of  the  6th  ward, 
judge 's  certificate,  seal  number  306 ;  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki, recount  seal  number  2402. 

Mr.  King.  Twenty-ninth  precinct  of  the  6th  ward, 
judge's  certificate,  seal  number  3;  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki, recount  seal  number  5982. 

Mr.  King.     Thirty-ninth  precinct  of  the    6th    ward, 
judge's  certificate,  seal  number  315;  Commissioner  Czar- 
necki, recount  seal  number  813. 
I  Mr.  King.     Sixteenth  precinct  of  the  7th  ward,  seal 

number  259;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  number  141. 

Mr.  King.    Twenty-first  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  275 ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  572. 
'  Mr.  King.    Twenty-fourth  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge 's 

certificate,  seal  number  555 ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  559. 
3106  Mr.  King.  Twenty-fifth  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  272;  Commissioner  Czarnecki, 
recount  seal  number,  "wax  covered  seal,"  reseal  number 
15377. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-first  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  93;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  383. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-second  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge 's 
certificate,  seal  number  297;  Commissioner  Czarnecki, 
recount  seal  number  547. 

Mr.  King.    Thirty-fourth  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge's 
'        certificate,  seal  number  295;   Commissioner  Czarnecki, 
recount  seal  number  45. 

Mr.  King.    Thirty-eighth  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  266;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  61. 
\  Mr.  King.    Thirty-ninth  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge's 

certificate,  seal  number  131  and  waxed ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number,  sealed  with  wax  and  resealed  with 
number  868. 

Mr.  King.  Forty-fifth  precinct  of  7th  ward,  judge's 
certificate  number  545;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  seal  broken,  545, 
new  seal  856. 


Seal  Discrepamies — Continued.  603 

3107  Mr.  King.  Fourth  precinct  of  18th  ward,  seal  number 
242 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  number  767 ;  the  seal 
was  opened. 

Sixth  precinct  of  18th  ward,  Mr.  King,  judge's  certifi- 
cate seal  number  2,472 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  num- 
ber 793. 

Tenth  precinct  of  18th  ward,  Mr.  King,  seal  number 
253 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  number  630. 

Mr.  Czarnecki.  The  10th  precinct  of  18th  ward  was 
the  last  one? 

Mr.  King.  Seal  number  4,462.  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount 
seal  number  642. 

Mr.  King.  The  17th  precinct  of  18th  ward,  judge 's  cer- 
'  tificate,  seal  number  243.  There  is  an  erasure.  Mr. 
>        Czarnecki,  recount  seal  number  605. 

Mr.  King.  Nineteenth  precinct  of  18th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  852;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  seal  number 
636. 

"The  Witness.  Here  is  a  notation,  'Eegistered  one, 
trying  out  machine,  no  vote.'  " 

3108  Mr.  King.  Twentieth  precinct  of  18th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  469;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  649. 

Mr.  King.  Twenty-third  precinct  of  18th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  251;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  753. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-first  precinct  of  18th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  112 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  665. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-fourth  precinct  18th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  391;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  609. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-fifth  precinct  18th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  111;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  714. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-sixth  precinct  18th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  977 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  779. 

Mr.   King.     Thirty-seventh  precinct    of    18th    ward, 
judge's  certificate,  seal  number  197;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  728. 
*  Mr.  King.    Thirty-ninth  precinct  of  18th  ward,  judge 's 

certificate,  seal  number  733;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  1,098. 

Mr.  King.    Forty-first  precinct  of  18th  ward,  judge's 


604  Seal  Discrepancies — Continued. 

certificate,  seal  number  99;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  751. 

Mr.  King.  Forty-third  precinct  of  18tli  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  106 ;  Commissioner  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  736. 

3109  Mr.  King.  Forty-seventh  precinct  of  18th  ward,  judge 's 
certificate,  seal  number  5,956 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  750. 

Mr.  King.  Fifty -first  precinct  18th  ward,  judge's  cer- 
tificate, seal  number  101;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  731. 

3110  Mr.  King.  Second  precinct  of  21st  ward,  judge's  cer- 
tificate, number  502 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  number 
2,445. 

Mr.  King.  Sixth  precinct  of  1st  ward,  judge's  certifi- 
cate, seal  number  512;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  num- 
ber 5,943. 

Mr.  King.  Seventh  precinct  of  21st  ward,  judge's  cer- 
tificate, number  764;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  number 
768. 

Mr.  King.  Thirteenth  precinct  of  21st  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  558;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  2,444. 

Mr.  King.  Eighteenth  precinct  of  21st  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  number  411 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  num- 
ber 5,965. 

Mr.  King.  Twentieth  precinct  of  21st  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  381;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  5,969. 

Mr.  King..  Twenty-fifth  precinct  of  21st  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  357;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  2,426. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-third  precinct  21st  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  990;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  2,487. 

Thirty-seventh  precinct  of  21st  ward,  judge's  certifi- 
cate, seal  number  395;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  num- 
ber 2,445. 

3111  Mr.  King.  Forty-third  precinct  of  21st  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  4,944 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  5,944. 

•  Mr.  King.  Forty-sixth  precinct  21st  ward,  judge 's  cer- 
tificate, seal  number  5,978;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  59. 


Seal  Discrepancies — Continued.  605 

Mr.  King.  Fifth  precinct  25th  ward,  judge's  certificate, 
seal  number  719 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  number  619. 

Mr.  King.  Tenth  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge 's  certifi- 
cate, seal  number  507;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  seal  number  705; 
not  intact ;  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  Sixteenth  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  659;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  659 ;  not  intact ;  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  Eighteenth  precinct  25th  ward,  judge 's  cer- 
tificate, seal  number  396;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  695. 

Mr.  King.  Nineteenth  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  592;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
791 ;  not  sealed ;  seal  not  intact. 

Mr.  King.  Twenty-first  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  numlDcr  795 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  695 ;  not  sealed ;  not  intact ;  not  connected. 

3112  Mr.  King.  Twenty-second  precinct  of  25th  ward,  no 
seal  number  in  the  certificate ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  5,997 ;  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  Twenty-third  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge 's 
certificate,  seal  number  5,952 ;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  5,920. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-fourth  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge 's 
certificate,  seal  number  520;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  5,914. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-fifth  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge's 
certificate,  seal  number  5,913. 

* '  Mr.  Czarnecki.    With  evidence  of  a  correction  there. ' ' 

Mr.  Czarnecki.    Recount  seal  number  2,913. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    Evidently  that  was  a  mistake  made." 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-sixth  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge 's 
certificate,  seal  number  521;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  723. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-seventh  precinct  of  25th  ward, 
judge's  certificate,  seal  number  585;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  re- 
count seal  number  92 ;  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  Thirty-eighth  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge 's 
certificate,  seal  number  186;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  755. 

3113  Mr.  King.  Fortieth  precinct  of  25th  ward,  judge 's  cer- 
tificate, seal  number  157;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal 
number  733. 

Mr.  King.    Fifth  precinct  of  26th  ward;  judge's  certifi- 


606  Seal  Discrepancies — Continued. 

cate,  seal  number  650;  Mr.  Czarnecki,  recount  seal  num- 
ber 616. 

(Note:  From  this  on  I  will  not  give  name  of  witness, 
but  only  number  of  seals  in  judge's  certificate  and  the 
recount.) 

6th  precinct,  26th  ward,  seal  number  157 ;  recount  seal 
number  709,  recorded,  not  sealed. 

18th  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal  number  501;  re- 
count seal  numlDer  921. 

19th  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal  number  160 
count  seal  number  937. 

9th  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal  number  505 
count,  "no  metallic  seal  on  curtain  lever." 

21st  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal,  number  96 
count  seal,  number  960. 
I  25th  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal,  number  155 

count  seal  number  962. 

29th  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal  number  96 
count  seal  number  951. 
i  30th  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal  number  185 

count  seal  numlaer  612. 

31st  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal  number  983 
count  seal  "not  attached." 

33rd  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal  number  179 
count  seal  number  682 ;  not  sealed. 

34th  precinct,  26th  ward. 

"Mr.  King.  Here  is  a  notation  on  the  34th  precinct  of 
the  26th  ward,  '  Had  no  seal,  not  delivered  to  us. '  " 

Recount ' '  no  metallic  seal  attached. ' ' 

3115  36th  precinct,  26th  ward,  judge's  seal  number  4,445; 
recount  seal  number  967,  not  sealed. 

1st  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  5,966;  re- 
count seal  number  5,968. 

2nd  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  871;  re- 
count seal  number  5,925. 

6th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  442;  re- 
count seal  number  5,981. 

16th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  443;  re- 
count seal  number  5,973. 

17th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  891;  re- 
count seal  number  2,498. 

18th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number,  2,430; 
recount,  "no  seal,  not  sealed." 

3116  24th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  428;  re- 
count seal  number  2476. 


re- 
re- 
re- 
re- 
re- 
re- 
re- 
re- 


Seal  Discrepancies — Continued.  607 

i  25th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge 's  seal  number  453 ;  re- 

count seal  5,947. 

29tli  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  446;  re- 
count seal  number  2,465. 

30th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's*  seal  number  430;  re- 
count seal  number  2,471. 

36th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  586;  re- 
count seal  number  5,949,  not  sealed. 

38th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  439;  re- 
count seal  number  6,000,  not  fastened. 

39th  precinct,  31st  ward,  judge's  seal  number  434;  re- 
count "no  seal." 

8th  precinct,  32nd  ward,  judge 's  seal  number  482 ;  re- 
count seal  number  628. 

9th  precinct,  32nd  ward,  judge's  seal  number  890;  re- 
count seal  number  684 ;  seal  not  connected ;  not  sealed. 

10th  precinct,  32nd  ward,  judge 's  seal  number  480 ;  re- 
count seal  number  947. 

25th  precinct,  32nd  ward,  judge 's  seal  number  401 ;  re- 
count seal  number  621. 

26th  precinct,  32nd  ward,  judge 's  seal  number  497 ;  re- 
count seal  numljer  773. 

"Mr.  CzAENECKi.  The  voting  machine  number  on  cer- 
tificate number  2  is  the  same  as  on  the  recount  tally- 
sheet,  but  on  certificate  number  3,  the  voting  machine 
number  is  given  as  773,  which  is  the  seal  number." 

30th  precinct,  32nd  ward,  judge 's  seal  number  495 ;  re- 
count seal  645. 

40th  precinct,  32nd  ward,  judge's  seal  number  694;  re- 
'        count  seal  number  964. 

41st  precinct,  32nd  ward,  judge 's  seal  number  460 ;  re- 
count seal  number  713. 

44th  precinct,  32d  ward,  judge's  seal  number  5,001; 
recount  seal  number  611. 

3118  The  differences  between  the  protective  counters  before 
and  after  the  election  as  shown  by  the  judges '  certificates 
and  as  shown  at  the  recount  follows : 

31st  precinct  of  1st  ward. 

Me.  Czabnecki.  Voting  machine  No.  4751;  recount 
protective  counter  before,  2,993;  after,  3,069;  public 
counter  76. 

Mr.  King.  Voting  machine  4,751;  judge's  certificate; 
protective  counter,  before  2,993;  after  3,069;  public 
counter  76. 


608  Discrepancies  in  Election  Returns. 

8120    Ward  2,  precinct  1. 

Mr.  King.  Machine  No.  4593.  Judge's  certificate,  pro- 
tective counter,  before  3,075 ;  after  3,127 ;  public  counter, 
70. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter,  before 
3,057 ;  after  3,127 ;  public  counter,  70. 

Gth  ward,  3d  precinct. 

Mr.  King.  Judge's  certificate  machine  No.  4578.  Pro- 
tective counter,  before  2,964;  after  3,031;  public  counter, 
67. 

Mr.  CzAENECKi.  Eecount.  Machine  No.  4578.  Protec- 
tive counter,  before  2,964 ;  after  3,031 ;  public  counter,  67. 

Mr.  King.  1st  ward,  20th  precinct.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4620.  Protective  counter,  before  3,083 ; 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  102. 

Mr.  CzAENECKi.  Recount.  Machine  No.  4620.  Pro- 
tective counter,  before  2,995 ;  after  3,097 ;  public  counter, 
102. 
3122  Mr.  Deneen  states  that  the  difference  between  the  pro- 
tective counter  before,  according  to  the  judge's  certifi- 
cate, and  the  protective  counter  after,  according  to  the 
recount,  is  14  votes,  and  according  to  the  public  counter 
in  both  instances  102  votes,  affording  no  check  on  cor- 
rectness. 

3124  Mr.  CzAKNECKi.  2,995  is  the  protective  counter  as  the 
machine  was  when  it  left  the  warehouse,  according  to  the 
records  of  our  custodian  furnished  during  the  recount. 

3125  Mr.  Deneen.  Mr.  Hoff's  record  does  not  agree  with 
the  record  of  five  other  persons  made  under  oath  in  the 
polling  place. 

3127  Mr.  King.  17th  precinct  of  6th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  4802,  protective  counter  before,  2,932; 
after,  2,932;  public  counter,  77. 

Mr.  CzAKNECKi.  Recount;  protective  counter  before, 
2,932;  after,  3,009;  public  counter,  77. 

3128  Mr.  King.  33d  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
machine  No.  4397;  protective  counter  before,  3,303;  with 
a  notation,  "Final  after  repairs."  Protective  counter, 
after,  3,371 ;  public  counter,  70. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,301 ;  after,  3,371 ;  public  counter,  70. 

3129  Mr.  King.  7th  ward,  8th  precinct.  Judge's  certificate, 
machine  No.  4388 ;  protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
3,239 ;  public  counter,  87. 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  609 

Mr.  CzARHTEKi.  Eecount.  Protective  counter  before, 
blank ;  after,  3,239 ;  public  counter,  87. 

3130  Mr.  King.  7tli  ward,  26th  precinct.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  4596 ;  protective  counter  before,  4,119 ; 
after,  4,119 ;  public  counter,  91. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Eecount.  Protective  counter  before, 
4,028;  after,  4,119;  public  counter,  91. 

Mr.  King.  20th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  No.  4617. 
Judge's  certificate;  protective  counter  before,  39;  after, 
39 ;  public  counter,  376. 

Mr.  CzAHNECKi.  Eecount.  Protective  counter  before, 
4,329 ;  after,  4,368 ;  public  counter,  39. 

Mr.  King.  Ward  18, 14th  precinct.  Machine  No.  4793 ; 
protective  counter  before,  2,934;  after,  3,040;  public 
counter,  "I  can't  make  that  out." 

3131  Com'r  Czarnecki.  Eecount.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 2,934 ;  after,  3,050 ;  public  counter,  116. 

3132  Mr.  King.  Precinct  40,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4806. 
Protective  counter  before,  5,084;  after,  5,120;  public 
counter,  37. 

Mr.  Czarnecki.  Eecount.  Protective  counter  before, 
4,775 ;  after,  5,120 ;  public  counter,  37. 

3134  Mr.  King.  41st  precinct,  8th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  4850;  protective  counter,  blank;  after, 
2,835 ;  public  counter,  60. 

Mr.  Czarnecki.  Eecount.  Machine  No.  4150  instead  of 
4850.  Protective  counter  before,  2,775 ;  after,  2,835 ;  pub- 
lic counter,  60. 

3135  Mr.  King.  4th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  4681. 
Protective  counter  before,  4,034;  after,  blank;  public 
counter,  blank. 

Mr.  Czarnecki.  Eecount.  Protective  counter,  3,153 ; 
after,  3,190;  public  counter,  137. 

3136  Mr.  King.  1st  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  4706. 
Protective  counter  before,  3,824;  after,  3,914;  public 
counter,  90. 

Mr.  Czarnecki.  Eecount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,824 ;  after,  3,914 ;  public  counter,  90. 

Mr.  King.  17th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No. 
4703.  Protective  counter  before,  3,684 ;  after,  3,731 ;  pub- 
lic counter,  48. 

Mr.  Czarnecki.  Eecount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,683 ;  after,  3,731 ;  public  counter,  48. 

3137  Mr.  King.    32d  precinct,  21st  ward.    Machine  No.  4682. 


f 


610  Return  Discrepancies — Contimied. 

Protective  counter  before,  3,249;  after,  3,306;  public 
counter,  507. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  bef-ore, 
3,249 ;  after,  3,306 ;  public  counter,  57. 

Mr.  King.  36th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No. 
4844.  Protective  counter  before,  2,799 ;  after,  2,883 ;  pub- 
lic counter,  183. 

Mr.  CzAENECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
2,799 ;  after,  2,983 ;  public  counter,  184. 

Mr.  King.  39th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  4858. 
Protective  counter  before,  2,764;  note,  "but  started  on 
2,768  on  account  of  machine  being  out  of  order";  after, 
2,859 ;  public  counter,  95. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
2,764 ;  after,  2,859 ;  public  counter,  95. 

3138  Mr.  King.  40th  precinct,  ward  21.  Machine  No.  4849. 
Protective  counter  before,  2,800;  after,  2,800;  public 
counter,  109. 

Mr.  CzAKNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
2,691 ;  after,  2,800 ;  public  counter,  109. 

Mr.  King.  45th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  4826. 
Protective  counter  before,  2,734;  after,  2,810;  public 
counter,  78. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
2,732 ;  after,  2,810 ;  public  counter,  78. 

Mr.  King.  48th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  4673. 
Protective  counter  before,  2,984;  after,  2,984;  public 
counter,  86. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
2,898;  after,  2,984;  public  counter,  86. 

3139  Mr.  King.  8th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  4705.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  3,330. 

Mr.  CzAENECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,240 ;  after,  3,330 ;  public  counter,  87. 

Mr.  King.  14th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  4512.  Protective  counter  before,  363; 
after,  365 ;  public  counter,  2.    ' '  None  voted  on  machine. ' ' 

Mr.  CzAENECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
363;  after,  365;  public  counter,  2. 

3140  Mr.  King.  16th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  589.  Protective  counter  before,  3,662; 
after,  90 ;  public  counter,  92. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.    Recount.    Machine  No.  4471  (different 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  611 

number  machine).  Protective  counter  before,  3,662; 
after,  90 ;  public  counter,  92. 

Mr.  King.  29th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  4457.  Protective  counter  before,  3689 ; 
after,  3689 ;  public  counter,  45. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,644 ;  after,  3,689 ;  public  counter,  45. 

3141  Mr.  King.  39th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  4472.  Protective  counter  before,  3,699; 
after,  3,769;  public  counter,  70. 

Mr.  CzAENECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,699 ;  after,  3,769 ;  public  counter,  70. 

Mr.  King.    9th  precinct,  26th  ward.    Judge 's  certificate, 
machine  No.  4760.     Protective  counter    before,    1,917; 
after,  1,998 ;  public  counter,  73. 
i  Mr.  CzAENECKi.    Recount.    Protective  counter  before, 

1,917 ;  after,  1,999 ;  public  counter,  82. 

Mr.  King.     11th  precinct,  26th  ward.     Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  4425.    Protective  counter  before,  4,038 ; 
'        after,  4,038 ;  public  counter,  40. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,998 ;  after,  4,038 ;  public  counter,  40. 

3142  Mr.  King.  25th  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, machine  No.  4422.  Protective  counter  before,  48; 
after,  48 ;  public  counter,  48. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,891 ;  after,  3,939 ;  public  counter,  48. 

Mr.  King.  26th  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4446.  Protective  counter  before,  3,634 ; 
after  3,736 ;  public  counter,  102. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,634 ;  after,  3,736 ;  public  counter,  102. 

Mr.  King.  36tli  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4445.  Protective  counter  before,  3,861 ; 
after,  164;  public  counter,  3,861. 

Mr.  CzARNECKi.  Recount.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,697 ;  after,  3,861 ;  public  counter,  164. 


612  A.  M.  Lawrence  Affidavit. 

3144  "Committee's  Exhibit  5,  of  4/22/14. 

State  of  California,  | 

City  and  Coukty  of  San  Francisco.  I  ^^" 

Andrew  M.  Lawrence,  having  been  first  duly  sworn,  de- 
poses and  says : 

I  am  a  resident  of  the  City  of  Chicago  and  the  president 
of  the  Illinois  Publishing  &  Printing  Company,  the  pub- 
lisher of  the  Chicago  Examiner. 

I  have  read  a  statement  introduced  by  Charles  S.  De- 
neen,  before  the  Legislative  Committee  of  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, investigating  the  efficiency  of  voting  machines  and  a 
certain  contract  made  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners of  the  City  of  Chicago,  for  the  purchase  of  a  de- 
vice known  as  the  'Empire  Voting  Machine.'  This  state- 
ment was  forwarded  to  me  at  the  City  of  San  Francisco. 
It  is  unsigned  and  unattested  and  purports  to  be  the  state- 
ment of  three  residents  of  Ottumwa,  Iowa,  Harrison,  Gray 
and  Pickler ;  to  the  effect  that  they  were  to  be  paid  $1,500 
by  one  H.  W.  Barr  if  they  were  able  to  bring  about  an 
introduction  of  H.  W.  Barr  to  myself  through  Chas.  Walsh 
and  secure  my  endorsement  of  the  'Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chines ' — it  being  expected  that  with  my  endorsement,  said 
Empire  Machines  could  be  sold  to  the  City  of  Chicago. 

3145  I  never  had  any  knowledge  of  any  such  agreement.  I  do 
not  know  H.  W.  Barr  and  to  my  best  knowledge  and  belief 
have  never  met  him.  He  was  never  introduced  to  me  by 
Charles  Walsh  or  by  any  other  person.  All  statements 
with  reference  to  any  interviews  had  between  myself  and 
H.  W.  Barr  and  Charles  Walsh  with  reference  to  the  sale 
of  these  machines,  are  absolutely  and  entirely  false  and  no 
such  interviews  ever  took  place. 

Inasmuch  as  I  am  temporarily  absent  from  Chicago, 
with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  Committee,  I  hasten 
to  forward  this  statement  by  mail  and  by  telegraph,  to 
deny  an  unsigned  and  unsworn  statement,  introduced  be- 
fore said  Committee,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  villifying  me. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  16th  day  of  Au- 
gust, 1913. 

(Signed)    Andrew  M.  Lawrence. 
Geo.  H.  Cataniss, 
Judge  of  the  Superior  Court  of  the  City 
and  County  of  San  Francisco,  State  of 
California." 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  613 


Volume  XXVIII. 

Thursday,  April  23,  1914. 

Morning  Session. 

3148  Lawrence  F.  King  resumes  the  stand: 

Further  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Mr.  King.  17th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, seal  number  891;  protective  counter  before,  2,751; 
after,  2,812;  public  counter,  62. 

Recount.  Protective  counter  before,  2,751 ;  after,  2,893 ; 
public  counter,  62.    Seal  number  2,498. 

3150  Mr.  King.  18th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  No.  4523. 
Protective  counter  before  and  after  in  pencil,  the  rest  of 
the  document  in  ink. 

Mr.  Deneen  states  that  the  pencil  marks  show  70  regis- 
tered on  the  public  counter  and  3,799  registered  on  the 
protective  counter. 

Mr.  King.  2d  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4861 ;  protective  counter  before,  2,691 ;  after, 
2,785 ;  public  counter,  94. 

Recount :    Protective  counter  before,  2,691 ;  after,  2,785 
public  counter,  94. 

Mr.  King.  5th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4502.  Protective  counter  before,  3,826 ;  after 
3,921 ;  public  counter,  95. 

Recount :    Protective  counter  before.  3,826 ;  after,  3,921 
public  counter,  95. 

3151  Mr.  King.     37th  precinct,  31st  ward.     Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4479 ;  protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  141 ;  public  counter,  144. 

Recount : '  Protective  counter  before,  3,025 ;  after,  3,169 
public  counter,  144. 

3152  Mr.  King.  12th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4742.  Protective  counter  before,  4,788 ;  after 
4,902 ;  public  counter,  986. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  4,904 
public  counter,  116. 

3153  Mr.  King.  28th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4650.  Protective  counter  before,  3,637 ;  after 
3,774 ;  public  counter,  141. 


614  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,632 ;  after,  3,774 
public  counter,  142. 

Mr.  King.  34th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4394.  Protective  counter  before,  3,249 ;  after 
3,335 ;  public  counter,  86. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,249 ;  after,  3,335 
public  counter,  86. 

Mr.  King.  45th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4517.  Protective  counter  before,  3,673 ;  after, 
3,802 ;  public  counter,  129.  Notation  on  certificate :  ' '  The 
above  certificate  was  correct  at  6  o  'clock  A.  M.  In  trying 
to  get  the  machine  to  operate  in  trial  by  the  board  expert, 
thirteen  were  registered  on  the  public  counter  and  3,686 
was  registered  before  the  machine — before  it  commenced 
to  work,  and  one  vote  each  was  registered  for  candidate 
number  42-A  and  43-A.  A.  C.  Maud,  Enoch  Harpole  and 
Clyde  Magee." 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,802 ; 
public  counter,  129. 

Mr.  Deneen.  There  is  nothing  to  show  for  whom  those 
13  votes  were  counted.  It  was  simply  13  votes  over  and 
that  many  checked  from  the  public  counter,  but  that  is  all 

3156  Mr.  King.  47th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge 's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4538.  Protective  counter  before,  3,762 ;  after. 
3,922 ;  public  counter,  159. 

Recount:  Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after, 
3,932 ;  public  counter,  151. 

3157  Mr.  King.  33d  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4531.  Protective  counter  before,  366 ;  after, 
366 ;  public  counter,  96. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,660 ;  after,  3,756 
public  counter,  96. 

Mr.  King.  14th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge 's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4419.  Protective  counter  before,  3,254 ;  after 
3,327 ;  public  counter,  73. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,327 
public  counter,  73. 

Mr.  King.  19th  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi 
cate.  Machine  No.  4415.  Protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  5,221 ;  public  counter,  87. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  5,134 ;  after,  5,221 
public  counter,  87. 

3158  In  this  precinct  the  judges'  certificates  were  not  filled 
out. 

3159:    Mr.  King.    Precinct  4,  ward  1.    Certificate  number  2. 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  615 

Machine  No.  835,  certificate  number  3,  Machine  No.  799. 
Protective    counter    before,    276;    after,    2,715;    public 
•  counter,  9. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4799.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 2,715 ;  after,  2,706 ;  public  counter,  9. 

3161  Mr.  King.  Precinct  5,  ward  1.  Judge's  certificate.  Ma- 
chine No.  4847.  Protective  counter  before,  2,825;  after 
2,812.    Public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,810 ;  after,  2,825 
public  counter,  15 ;  seal  number,  606. 

3162  Mr.  King.  14th  precinct  of  1st  ward.  Judge's  certifi 
cate.  Machine  No.  4748.  Protective  counter  before,  2,861 
after,  2,903 ;  public  counter,  42 ;  seal  number  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,861 ;  after,  2,903 
public  counter,  42 ;  seal  number  772. 

3163  Mr.  King.  15th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4763.  Protective  counter  before  and  after 
and  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,908 ;  after,  2,988 
public  counter,  80 ;  seal  number  670. 

Mr.  King.  16th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.  4740, 
Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after,  2,775;  public 
counter,  9. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,766 ;  after,  2,775 
public  counter,  9 ;  seal  number  812. 

Mr.  King.  17th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4782.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after 
3,566 ;  public  counter,  166. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,450 ;  after,  3,566 
public  counter,  116 ;  seal  number,  836. 

3164  Mr.  King.    20th  precinct,  1st  ward. 

"There  is  nothing  here  for  the  20th  precinct.  The  cer- 
tificates are  missing." 

' '  Mr.  Deneen.    This  is  the  precinct  where  the  gentlemen 
testified  to  voting. ' ' 
3166     Mr.  Deneen.    I  think  we  should  request  one  of  the  com- 
missioners, if  one  is  here,  or  Mr.  Stuart,  to  go  over  and 
look  it  up. 

Mr.  Stuakt.  The  20th  precinct  of  the  first  ward  is  not 
here,  apparently.  I  think  we  can  find  it  if  it  was  receipted 
for  that  night- 

The  certificate  was  not  produced. 

Mr.  King.  The  machine  number  was  4829.  Protective 
counter  before,  blank ;  after,  30 ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount:     Machine  No.  4829.     Protective  counter  be- 


616  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

fore,  2,796 ;  after,  2,831 ;  public  counter,  35 ;  seal  number 
5906. 

Mr.  King.  22d  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge 's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4744.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
3,069 ;  public  counter,  36. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,033 ;  after,  3,069 ; 
public  counter,  36 ;  seal  number  5954. 

3167  Mr.  King.  23d  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4775.  Protective  counter  before,  2,888 ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,888 ;  after,  2,888 ; 
public  counter,  blank. 

Mr.  King.    No  seal  number  on  certificate  number  3. 

Mr.  King.  24th  precinct,  1st  ward,  Machine  No.  4555. 
Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  protective  counter  after, 
3,155;  public  counter,  7;  certificate  number  2  is  missing. 
Seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,148 ;  after,  3,155 ; 
public  counter,  7 ;  seal  number  5946. 

3168  Mr.  King.  26th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge 's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4830.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
374 ;  public  counter,  30 ;  seal  number  5994. 

"Mr.  MuLDOWNEY.  There  is  no  recount  sheet  for  that 
precinct. ' ' 

29th  precinct,  1st  ward,  the  recount  sheet  is  also  missing. 

3169  Mr.  King.  27th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No ; 

certificate  number  3,  876 ;  certificate  number  2,  2,698.  Cer- 
tificate number  1  is  missing.  Seal  number,  876.  Protec- 
tive counter  after,  2,699 ;  public  counter,  8.  There  is  no  re- 
count sheet  for  this  precinct. 

3170  Mr.  King.  31st  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4833.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
2,796.  Public  counter,  11.  ' '  There  has  been  an  erasure  on 
the  public  counter. ' ' 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,725 ;  after,  2,796 ; 
public  counter,  11 ;  seal  number,  2,499. 

3171  Mr.  King.  32d  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.  4813. 
Protective  counter  before,  2,826;  after,  blank;  public 
counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,896 ;  after,  2,895 ; 
public  counter,  59.    Seal  number,  2463. 

Mr.  King.  34th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge 's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4745.  Protective  counter  before,  3,159 ;  after, 
blank;  public  counter,  blank;  seal  number,  blank. 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  617 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,159 ;  after,  3,254 ; 
public  counter,  95 ;  seal  number,  5,906. 

Mr.  King.  36th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4752.  Protective  counter  before,  3,212 ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,212 ;  after, 
3,275;  public  counter,  63;  seal  number  5923. 

3172  Mr.  King.  38th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4783,  certificate  number  1  is  missing;  seal 
number,  blank;  protective  counter,  after,  3,061;  public 
counter,  140. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,921 ;  after,  3,061 
public  counter,  140 ;  seal  number  5953. 

3173  Mr.  King.  4th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4614.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after 
3,374 ;  public  counter,  72. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,307 ;  after,  3,374 
public  counter,  72 ;  seal  number  680 ;  reseal  854. 

Mr.  King.  The  5th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certifi 
cate,  Machine  No.  4543;  protective  counter  before,  338 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4533  (different  number).  Pro 
tective  counter  before,  3,354 ;  after,  3,385 ;  public  counter 
31 ;  seal  number,  637. 

Mr.  King.  6th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4589.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  4,935 ;  after,  4,949 
public  counter,  14;  seal  number,  762. 

3174  Mr.  King.  7th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4603.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
32 ;  public  counter,  2,628 ;  seal  number  995. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  2,628 
public  counter,  32 ;  seal  number  734. 
3176     Mr.  King.    2d  precinct,  2d  ward.    Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4746.    Protective  counter  before,  2,768 ;  after 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,762 ;  after,  2,952 
public  counter,  84;  seal  number,  739. 

Mr.  King.  10th  precinct,  2d  w^ard.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4559.  A  note  by  the  judges  and  clerks  of  elec- 
tion states  that  the  voting  machine  was  not  used. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,108 ;  after,  3,109 
public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number  365. 

Mr.  King.    13th  precinct,  2d  ward,  Machine  No.  4522. 


618  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

Protective  counter  before,  3,633;  after,  blank;  public 
counter,  blank. 

Recount:  Machine  4532.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,633;  after,  3,721;  public  counter,  88;  seal  number  678 
(different  number  machine) . 

Mr.  King.  15th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4549.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
3,329;  public  counter,  80,  "and  one  female." 

3178  Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,248 ;  after,  3,329 ; 
public  counter,  81 ;  seal  number  740. 

Mr.  King.  16th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  760.  Protective  counter  before,  342;  after, 
77;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4376.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, blank ;  after,  3,190 ;  public  counter,  77 ;  seal  number 
760. 

Mr.  King.  18th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge 's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4604.  Protective  counter  before,  3,336 ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,336 ;  after,  3,361 ; 
public  counter,  25 ;  seal  number,  764. 

3179  Mr.  King.  20th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4509.  Protective  counter  before,  3,985 ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

"Mr.  Deneen  (to  Mr.  Muldowney,  who  is  calling  off  the 
recount).    You  have  not  the  20th I 

' '  Mr.  MuDOWNEY.    Just  the  first  19  precincts. ' ' 
Mr.  King.    22d  precinct,  2d  ward.    Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4554.    Protective  counter  before,  3,234 ;  after, 
3,278 ;  public  counter,  44 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

3180  Mr.  King.  30th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge 's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4734.  Protective  counter  before,  4,208 ;  after, 
4,208;  public  counter,  blank;  seal  number  666. 

Mr.  King.  35th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4508.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
3,669 ;  public  counter,  31. 

Mr.  King.  36th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4621 ;  protective  counter  before,  3,207 ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Mr.  King.  39th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4587 ;  protective  counter  before,  4,168 ;  certifi- 
cates numbers  2  and  3,  blank,  and  seal  number,  blank. 

3181  Mr.  King.  40th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4611.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
3,534 ;  public  counter,  16. 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  619 

Mr.  King.  43d  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4597.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
3,186 ;  public  counter,  4,138. 

3182  Mr.  King.  51st  precinct,  2d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4537.  Protective  counter  before,  4,886 ;  after, 
4,967 ;  public  counter,  81 ;  seal,  blank. 

Mr.  King.  52d  precinct,  2d  ward.  No  number  of  ma- 
chine given.  Protective  counter  before,  3,098 ;  after,  blank ; 
public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Mr.  King.  1st  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4800.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
2,627 ;  public  counter,  83. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,544 ;  after,  2,697 ; 
public  counter,  83 ;  seal  number,  708. 

Mr.  King.  2d  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4622.  Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after, 
3,125 ;  jjublic  counter,  37. 

Recount:  Protective  counter  before,  3,088;  after, 
3,125 ;  public  counter,  37 ;  seal  number  2447. 

Mr.  King.  5th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4634.  Protective  counter  before,  3,180 ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

3183  Recount:  Machine  No.  4634.  Protective  counter,  be- 
fore, 3,182 ;  after,  3,266 ;  public  counter,  86 ;  seal  number, 
blank. 

Mr.  King.  6th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4373;  Protective  counter,  before,  1,244; 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  64 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4373.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 1,244 ;  after,  1,308 ;  public  counter,  64 ;  seal  number, 
610. 

Mr.  King.  7th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.  4398. 
Protective  counter  before,  3,516;  after,  3,599;  public 
counter,  83 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,516 ;  after,  3,599 ; 
public  counter,  83 ;  seal  number,  5,996. 

Mr.  King.  11th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4497.  Protective  counter  before,  2,947 ;  after, 
3,050 ;  public  counter,  123 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,947 ;  after,  3,050 ; 
public  counter,  103 ;  seal  number,  2,417. 

3184  Mr.  King.  Precinct  12,  ward  6.  Judge's  certificate.  Ma- 
chine No.  4396.  Protective  counter  before,  3,801;  after, 
3,886 ;  public  counter,  85 ;  seal  number,  5,992. 


620  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,801 ;  after,  3,886 ; 
public  counter,  85 ;  seal  number,  3,992. 

Mr.  King.  18th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
— no  machijie  number  on  any  of  the  certificates.  Before, 
after  and  public  counter  and  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4569.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,700;  after,  3,796;  public  counter,  96;  seal  number, 
2,435. 
3185  Mr.  King.  20th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4620.  Protective  counter  before,  3,083 ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  102. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,423 ;  after,  3,295 ; 
public  counter,  102 ;  seal  number  2488. 

Mr.  King.  25th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4405.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
3,295 ;  public  counter,  52. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,423 ;  after,  3,295 ; 
public  counter,  52 ;  seal  number,  2469. 

Mr.  King.  27th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4574.  Protective  counter  before,  4,869 ;  after, 
4,950 ;  public  counter,  87 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  4,869 ;  after,  4,956 ; 
public  counter,  87 ;  seal  number,  2497. 

Mr.  King.  29th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge 's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4625.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
3,519 ;  public  counter,  120 ;  seal  number,  the  figure  3. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,299 ;  after,  3,519 ; 
public  counter,  120 ;  seal  number,  5,982. 

Mr.  King.  37th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge 's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4771.  Protective  counter  before,  2,815 ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :    Protective  counter  before,  2,815 ;  after,  2,909 ; 
public  counter,  94 ;  seal  number,  5904. 
3187     Mr.  King.    40th  precinct,  6th  ward.    Judge 's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4612.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
73 ;  public  counter,  73. 

Recount :  Protective  counter,  before,  3,207 ;  after,  2,380 ; 
public  counter,  73;  seal  number,  2462. 

Mr.  King.  42d  precinct,  6th  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4389.  Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after, 
46 ;  public  counter,  46. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,432 ;  after,  3,479 ; 
public  counter,  46 ;  seal  number  2496. 

Mr.  King.    44th  precinct,  6th  ward.    Judge's  certificate, 


I 

I 


Return  Discrepcmcies — Continued.  621 

Machine  No.  4594.   Protective  counter  before,  3,198 ;  after, 
3,314 ;  public  counter,  116 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,198 ;  after,  3,314 ; 
public  counter,  116 ;  seal  number,  853. 

Mr.  King.  3d  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4632.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter,  before,  3,359 ;  after,  3,359 ; 
public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number  908. 
3188     Mr.  King.    10th  precinct,  7th  ward.    Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4582.    Protective  counter  before,  3,237 ;  after, 
3,338 ;  public  counter,  101. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,237 ;  after,  3,338 ; 
public  counter,  101 ;  seal  number  546. 

Mr.  King.  12th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4595 ;  protective  counter  before,  5,281 ;  after, 
5,405 ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  5,281 ;  after,  5,405 ; 
public  counter,  124 ;  seal  number,  119  (or  1191). 

Mr.  King.  11th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4378.  The  numbers  on  the  certificates— the 
certificates  are  blank.  Notation  on  certificate  number  3, 
"that  the  curtain  was  sealed  with  seal  number  133,  which 
is  no  good.  Telephoned  Election  Commissioners  and  said 
to  let  it  go  and  just  lock. ' ' 

Mr.  King.  13th  precinct,  7th  ward.  It  is  missing.  The 
14th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge 's  certificate.  Machine  No. 
4386.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  blank ;  pub- 
lic counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,019 ;  after,  3,120 ; 
public  counter,  101 ;  seal  number  569 ;  new  seal  number 
877. 

Mr.  King.     18th  precinct,  7th  ward.     Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4576.    Protective  counter  before,  1,317 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :    Protective  counter  before,  1,317 ;  after,  1,365 
public  counter,  48 ;  seal  number  575 ;  new  seal  number  817 

Mr.  King.  19th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4566.  Protective  counter  before,  3,300 ;  after, 
3,340 ;  public  counter,  40 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,330 ;  after,  3,340 
public  counter,  40 ;  seal  number,  140. 
3190     Mr.  King.  24th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4528.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after, 
92,  with  a  notation  "the  machine  shows  93  on  account  of 


622  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

error   in   machine   being  thrown   by  mistake";    public 
counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,376 
public  counter,  93 ;  seal  number,  569. 

Mr.  King.  25th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4563.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after 
56 ;  public  counter,  56. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,934 ;  after,  3,990 
public  counter,  56.    "Wax  covered  seal" ;  resealed  377. 

Mr.  King.  33d  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4584.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after 
3,514 ;  public  counter,  89 ;  seal,  blank. 

Recount:  Protective  counter  before,  3,425;  protective 
counter  after,  3,514 ;  public  counter,  89 ;  seal  number,  563 

3191  Mr.  King.  35th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4586.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after 
blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,003 ;  after,  3,073 
public  counter,  70 ;  seal  number,  553. 

Mr.  King.  36th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge 's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4583 ;  protective  counter  before,  3,547 ;  after 
3,707 ;  public  counter,  160 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,547 ;  after,  3,707 
public  counter,  160 ;  seal  number,  568. 

Mr.  King.  39th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4366.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after 
3,273 ;  public  counter,  52. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,273 
public  counter,  52 ;  seal  number,  868. 

Mr.  King.    47th  precinct,  7tli  ward,  is  missing. 

3192  1st  precinct,  18th  ward,  missing. 
2d  precinct,  18th  ward,  missing. 

6th  precinct,  18th  ward.     Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4789.    Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after,  3,020 
public  counter,  108 ;  seal  number,  2472. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,912 ;  after,  3,020 
public  counter,  108 ;  seal  number,  93. 

Mr.  King.  8th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certificate- 
Machine  No.  4663.  Protective  counter  before,  3,107 ;  after- 
blank;  public  counter,  blank;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,107 ;  after,  3,211 
public  counter,  104 ;  seal  number,  651. 

Mr.  King.  11th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi 
cate.  Machine  No.  4662.  Protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  77. 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  623 

3193  Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,953 ;  after,  3,030 ; 
public  counter,  77 ;  seal  number,  642. 

Mr.  King.    12th  precinct,  ISth  ward,  missing. 

13th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4666.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  blank ; 
public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,242 ;  after,  3,207 ; 
public  counter,  65 ;  no  seal. 

Mr.  King.  16th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4718.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  81. 

Recount,  missing. 

3195  Mr.  King.    23d  precinct,  18th  ward,  missing. 

24th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4731.  Protective  counter  before,  3,067;  after,  3,134; 
public  counter,  67 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4531  (different  number).  Pro- 
tective counter  before,  3,067 ;  after,  3,134 ;  public  counter, 
67 ;  seal  number,  656. 

Mr.  King.    26th  precinct,  18th  ward,  missing. 

27th  precinct,  18tli  ward,  Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4759.  Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after,  32; 
public  counter,  35. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,985 ;  after,  3,020 ; 
public  counter,  35;  sealed  with  wax. 

3196  Mr.  King.  28th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4861.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  19 ;  public  counter,  19 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,872 ;  after,  2,891 ; 
public  counter,  19 ;  no  seal. 

Mr.  King.  30th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4717. 
Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after,  blank;  public 
counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,203 ;  after,  3,300 ; 
public  counter,  97 ;  seal  number,  692. 

Mr.  King.  33d  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4713. 
Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  blank ;  public  coun- 
ter, 33. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4715  (different  number).  Pro- 
tective counter  before,  3,488 ;  after,  3,521 ;  public  counter, 
33 ;  seal  number,  693. 

3197  Mr.  King.  35th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4716.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  111. 


624  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,542 ;  after,  3,609 
public  counter,  67 ;  seal  number,  714. 

Mr.  King.  38th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi 
cate.  Machine  No.  4710.  Protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  19 ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,907 ;  after,  2,926 
public  counter,  19 ;  seal  number,  676. 

Mr.  King.  40th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4806.  Protective  counter  before,  5,084 
after,  5,120 ;  public  counter,  37 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  4,775 ;  after,  5,120 
public  counter,  37 ;  seal  number,  683. 

3198  Mr.  King.  41st  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4850.  Protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  2,835 ;  public  counter,  60. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4150  (different  number).  Pro- 
tective counter  before,  2,775 ;  after,  2,835 ;  public  counter 
60 ;  seal  number,  751. 

Mr.  King.  43d  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  4692.  Protective  counter  before,  4,565;  after 
4,565 ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  4,565 ;  after,  4,599 
public  counter,  34 ;  seal  number,  736. 

.Mr.  King.  44th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4690.  Protective  counter  before,  3,136 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,136 ;  after,  3,194 
public  counter,  58 ;  seal  number,  787. 

Mr.  King.    45th  precinct,  18th  ward.    Machine  No.  4688 

3199  Protective   counter  before,   3,460;  after,  3,494;  public 
counter,  34;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount:  Protective  counter  before,  3,460;  after 
3,494;  public  counter,  34;  seal  number,  644. 

Mr.  King.  46th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4562.  Protective  counter  before,  3,554 
after,  3,629 ;  public  counter,  75 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount:  Protective  counter  before,  3,554;  after 
3,629 ;  public  counter,  75 ;  sealed  with  wax. 

Mr.  King.    49th  precinct  of  18th  ward.    Judge's  certifi 
'        cate.  Machine  No.  4695.    Protective  counter  before,  3,179 
after,  3,215 ;  public  counter,  36 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount:     Protective    counter    before,    3,179;   after, 
'        3,215;  public  counter,  36;  seal  number,  664. 

Mr.  King.     51st  precinct,  18th  ward.     Judge's  certifi- 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  625 

cate,  Machine  No.  4691.    Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  4,021 ;  public  counter,  65. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,956 ;  after,  4,021 ; 
public  counter,  65 ;  seal  numiber,  731. 

3200  Mr.  King.    52d  precinct,  18tli  ward.    Missing. 
3d  precinct,  21st  ward.    Missing. 

4th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4681.  Protective  counter  before,  3,044 ;  after,  blank ; 
'        public  counter,  blank. 

Recount:  Protective  counter  before,  3,153;  after, 
3,190 ;  public  counter,  137 ;  seal  number,  938. 

Mr.  King.  The  5th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  cer- 
tificate. Machine  No.  4801.  Protective  counter  before, 
2,745 ;  after,  2,815 ;  public  counter,  70 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount:  Protective  counter  before,  2,745;  after^ 
2,815 ;  public  counter,  70. 

3201  Mr.  King.  Precinct  8,  of  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4705.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  3,330 ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,240 ;  after,  3,330 ; 
public  counter,  87 ;  no  seal. 

Mr.  King.  The  9th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  cer- 
tificate, Machine  No.  4592.  Protective  counter  before, 
3,104 ;  after,  3,166 ;  public  counter,  62 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,104 ;  after,  3,166 ; 
public  counter,  62 ;  seal  number,  5963. 

Mr.  King.  11th  precinct,  21st  ward.  "Certificates  1, 
2  and  3,  not  filled  and  not  signed  by  either  of  the  judges." 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4737.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 5,084 ;  after,  5,229 ;  public  counter,  145 ;  seal  number, 
2452. 

Mr.  King.  14th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  3345.  Protective  counter  before, 
blank;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  blank;  seal  number, 
blank. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4693.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,285 ;  after,  3,357 ;  public  counter,  72 ;  seal  number, 
5842. 

3202  Mr.  King.  15th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4680.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  blank;  public  counter,  blank;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,484 ;  after,  3,549 ; 
public  counter,  65 ;  seal  number,  2484. 

Mr.  King.    18th  precinct,  21st  ward.    Judge's  certifi- 


626  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

cate,  Machine  No.  4684.  Protective  counter  before, 
2,803 ;  after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,803 ;  after,  2,887 ; 
public  counter,  84 ;  seal  number,  5965. 

Mr.  King.  20tli  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4772.  Protective  counter  before, 
2,773 ;  after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

3203  Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,773 ;  after,  2,844 ; 
public  counter,  71;  seal  number,  5969.  (Note:  This  is 
Machine  No.  4472.) 

Mr.  King.  21st  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4685.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  167 ;  public  counter,  167 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,471 ;  after,  3,628 ; 
public  counter,  167;  seal  number,  5968. 

Mr.  King.  26th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4672.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,377 ;  after,  3,446 ; 
public  counter,  69 ;  seal  number,  2416. 

Mr.  King.  27tli  precinct,  21st  ward.  Missing.  30th 
precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certificate.  Machine  No. 
4824.  Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after,  2,764; 
public  counter,  104;  seal  number,  blank. 

3204  Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,659 ;  after,  2,764 ; 
public  counter,  104 ;  seal  number,  5991. 

Mr.  King.  31st  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4678.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  3,489;  public  counter,  42;  "one  spoiled." 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,447 ;  after,  3,489 ; 
public  counter,  42 ;  seal  number,  2450. 

Mr.  King.  34tli  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4687.  Protective  counter  before,  miss- 
ing ;  after,  blank ;  public  counter,  60 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,473 ;  after,  3,533 ; 
public  counter,  60;  seal  number,  2449. 

Mr.  King.  35th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4765.  Protective  counter  before,  3,023 ; 
after,  3,098;  public  counter,  75;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,023 ;  after,  3,098 ; 
public  counter,  75 ;  seal  number,  5970. 

3205  Mr.  King.  38th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4822.    Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  627 

after,  the  word  "error;"  public  counter,  the  word  "er- 
ror ; ' '  seal  number, ' '  error. ' ' 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,996 ;  after,  3,095 
public  counter,  99 ;  seal  number,  2464. 

Mr.  King.  40th  precinct,  21.st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4849.  Protective  counter  before,  2,800 
after,  2,800 ;  public  counter,  109 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,691 ;  after,  2,800 
public  counter,  109 ;  seal  number,  5990. 

Mr.  King.  41st  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi 
cate.  Machine  No.  4857.  Protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  82 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,745 ;  after,  2,827 
public  counter,  82 ;  seal  number,  5902. 

Mr.  King.  Precinct  44,  of  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi 
cate,  Machine  No.  4709.    Protective  counter  before,  blank 

3206  after,  blank;  public  counter,  blank;  seal  number,  blank 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,838 ;  after,  2,893 
public  counter,  55 ;  seal  number,  5905. 

Mr.  King.  47th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Judge's  certifi 
cate.  Machine  No.  4795.  Protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  3,039 ;  public  counter,  80. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,959 ;  after,  3,039 
public  counter,  80 ;  seal  number,  5948. 

Mr.  King.  2d  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4441.  Protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  4,847 ;  public  counter,  145. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,702 ;  after,  2,847 
public  counter,  145 ;  seal  number,  648. 

Mr.  King.  3rd  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge 's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4468.  Protective  counter  before,  3,812 ;  after 
3,928 ;  public  counter,  116 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,812 ;  after,  3,928 
public  counter,  116 ;  seal  number,  653. 

3207  Mr.  King.  6th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge 's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4484.  Protective  counter  before,  blank 
after,  75 ;  public  counter,  75 ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,693 ;  after,  3,768 
public  counter,  75 ;  seal  number,  617. 

Mr.  King.  7th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge 's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4459.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  (No- 
tation) :  "On  certificate  1,  number  13  should  be  1,"  pro- 
tective counter  after,  3,100;  public  counter,  40. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,060 ;  after,  3,100 ; 
public  counter,  40 ;  seal  number,  769. 


628  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

Mr.  King.  8th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  blank;  protective  counter  before,  blank; 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank ;  seal  number,  blank. 

Eecount:  Machine  No.  4491.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,591 ;  after,  3,730 ;  public  counter,  139 ;  seal  number, 
961. 

3208  Mr.  King.  18th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4372.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,323 ;  after,  3,479 ; 
public  counter,  156 ;  seal  number,  695. 

Mr.  King.  19th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4461.  Protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after,  4,060;  public  counter,  3,939. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,939 ;  after,  4,060 ; 
public  counter,  121 ;  seal  number,  791. 

Mr.  King.    21st  precinct,  25th  ward. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  May  I  ask,  when  you  don't  read  re- 
garding the  seal,  do  you  mean  it  is  blank? 

"Mr.  King.  I  read  it  when  it  is  blank.  I  do  not  read 
the  number  if  there  is  a  number. ' ' 

3209  Mr.  King.  21st  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4458.  Seal  number,  795;  protective 
counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,353 ;  public  counter,  77. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,276 ;  after,  3,353 ; 
public  counter,  77 ;  seal  number,  695 ;  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  22d  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge 's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  471.  Seal,  blank ;  protective  counter  before, 
2,964;  after,  3,085;  public  counter,  121. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4467.  (Different  machine.) 
Protective  counter  before,  2,964 ;  after,  3,085 ;  public  coun- 
ter, 121 ;  seal  number,  5997 ;  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  31st  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4483.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter, 
before,  blank ;  after,  3,237 ;  public  counter,  34. 

Recount :    Protective  counter  before,  3,203 ;  after,  3,237 
public  counter,  34 ;  seal  number,  5927. 

3210  Mr.  King.  32d  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4486.  Seal,  blank ;  protective  counter  before 
3,787;  after,  69;  public  counter,  3,856. 

Recount :    Protective  counter  before,  3,787 ;  after,  3,856 
public  counter,  69;  seal  number,  5915,  not  sealed. 
Mr.  King.     33d  precinct,  25th  ward.     Missing. 
36th  precinct,  25th  ward.    Judge's  certificate.  Machine 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  629 

No.  4496.     Seal  number,  521;  protective  counter  before, 
2,905 ;  after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,905 ;  after,  3,013 ; 
public  counter,  108;  seal  number,  723. 

3211  Mr.  King.  39th  precinct,  25tli  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4472.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  3,699 ;  after,  3,769 ;  public  counter,  70. 

Recount :    Protective  counter  before,  3,699 ;  after,  3,769 ; 
.  public  counter,  70 ;  seal  number,  613,  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  40th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4465.  Seal  number,  157;  protective 
counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,280 ;  public  counter,  82. 

3212  Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,198 ;  after,  3,280 ; 
public  counter,  82 ;  seal  number,  733. 

Mr.  King.  41st  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4480.  Seal  number,  884;  protective 
counter  before,  3,700 ;  after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,700 ;  after,  3,817 ; 
public  counter,  117 ;  seal  number,  864. 

Mr.  King.  43d  precinct,  25th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4494.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  3,617;  after,  3,657;  public  counter,  40. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,617 ;  after,  3,657 ; 
public  counter,  40 ;  seal  number,  612. 

Mr.  King.  1st  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4437.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  3,639 ;  after,  3,753 ;  public  counter,  114. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,639 ;  after,  3,753 ; 
public  counter,  114;  seal  number,  735,  not  sealed. 

3213  Mr.  King.  Blank  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4421.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  blank ;  after,  100 ;  public  counter,  100. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,992 ;  after,  4,092 ; 
public  counter,  100;  seal  number,  726. 

Mr.  King.  5th  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4436.  Seal,  150;  protective  counter, 
before,  blank;  after,  notation:  "Didn't  take  this,  forgot 
same."  Public  counter,  81,  "but  only  80  cast  their  votes. 
Lever  pulled  back  once  by  mistake." 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  4,137 ;  after,  4,220 ; 
public  counter,  83 ;  seal  number,  616. 

Mr.  King.  8th  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4433.  Seal  number,  blank;  protective 
counter  before,  3,932 ;  after,  4,016 ;  public  counter,  84. 


630  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,932 ;  after,  4,016 ; 
public  counter,  84;  seal  number,  752. 

Mr.  King.    14th  precinct,  26tli  ward.    Missing. 
3214     15th  precinct,  26th  ward.    Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4519.    Seal,  blank ;  protective  counter,  before,  3,009 ; 
after,  3,079 ;  public  counter,  70. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,009 ;  after,  3,079 ; 
public  counter,  70 ;  seal  number,  633. 

Mr.  King.  23d  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4439.  Seal  number,  blank;  protective 
counter  before,  3,949 ;  after,  4,076 ;  public  counter,  127. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,949 ;  after,  4,076 ; 
public  counter,  127 ;  seal  number,  902. 

Mr.  King.  24th  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4413.  Seal,  blank;  with  an  erasure; 
protective  counter  before,  blank;  after,  blank;  public 
counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  4,845 ;  after,  4,963 ; 
public  counter,  118 ;  seal  number,  782,  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.    28th  precinct,  26th  ward.    Missing. 

32d  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4440.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter  before,  4,050; 
after,  4,191;  public  counter,  141. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  4,050 ;  after,  4,191 ; 
public  counter,  141 ;  seal  number,  619,  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  33d  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4432.  Seal,  179;  protective  counter, 
before,  blank ;  after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,988 ;  after,  4,095 ; 
public  counter,  107 ;  seal  number,  682,  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  37th  precinct,  26th  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4447.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  3,362;  after,  3,458;  public  counter,  96. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,362 ;  after,  3,458 ; 
public  counter,  96 ;  seal  number,  707,  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.    3d  precinct,  31st  ward.  All  certificates  blank. 
3216     Recount:  Machine  No.  4551.     Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,329 ;  after,  3,357 ;  public  counter,  28 ;  seal  number, 
2422. 

Mr.  King.  8th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4601.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  3,729;  after,  3,799;  public  counter,  70. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,729 ;  after,  3,799 ; 
public  counter,  70 ;  seal  number,  5945,  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.    10th  precinct  31st  ward.     Judge's  certifi- 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  631 

cate,  Machine  No.  4762;  seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  blank;  after,  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,046 ;  after,  3,098 ; 
public  counter,  52;  seal  number,  5993. 

Mr.  King.   12th  precinct,  31st  ward.    Missing. 

13th  precinct,  31st  ward.     Missing. 

3217  19th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4403;  seal,  blank;  protective  counter  before,  3,746; 
after,  3,782;  public  counter,  36. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,746 ;  after,  3,782 ; 
public  counter,  36;  seal  number,  5941. 

Mr.  King  reads  notation  on  certificate  number  3,  as  fol- 
lows: "18  B  1,  19  B  1,  15  I  2,  43  I  1,  44  I  3,  45  I  2,  47  I  1, 
50  I  1,  53  I  1,  54  I  1,  57  I  1,  62  I  1.  No  candidates  in 
column  I." 

"Mr.  Deneen.  There  were  no  candidates  in  that  column, 
and  yet  they  were  getting  votes  down  there.  It  was 
locked." 

3218  Mr.  King.  20th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  4545.  "Seal  was  damaged  and  could  not 
be  used."  Protective  counter  before,  blank;  after,  3,768; 
public  counter,  89. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,679 ;  after,  3,768 ; 
public  counter,  89 ;  no  seal. 

Mr.  King.  22d  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4774.  Seal  number,  2458;  protective 
counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,005 ;  public  counter,  42. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,951 ;  after,  3,005 ; 
public  counter,  42;  seal  number,  2458. 

Mr.  King.  27th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4643.  Seal,  5976;  protective  counter 
before,  blank ;  after,  3,553 ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,747 ;  after,  3,553 ; 
public  counter,  79;  seal  number,  5,976. 

3219  Mr.  King.  31st  x^recinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4825.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  3,321 ;  after,  3,321 ;  public  counter,  138. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,183 ;  after,  3,321 ; 
public  counter,  138 ;  seal  number,  2479. 

Mr.  King.  34th  precinct,  31st  ward.    Missing. 

35th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certificate.  Machine 
No.  4540.  Seal  number,  2407;  protective  counter  before, 
3287;  after,  3348;  public  counter,  61. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,287 ;  after,  3,348 ; 
public  counter,  61 ;  seal  number,  2407,  not  sealed. 


I 


632  Commission  Asked  No  Explanation  of  Discrepancies. 

3220  Attention  is  called  to  a  notation  showing  that  votes 
were  registered  on  lines  not  used  by  any  party  at  the 
election  and  which  lines  were  supposed  to  be  locked  out. 
If  votes  are  registered  below  "F"  line,  the  machine  was 
not  properly  set  and  the  notation  should  be  "  61  I  1,  37  D- 
1,  12  H  1." 

3221  "Mr.  McEwEN.  I  would  say  that  this  indicated  there 
was  one  vote  shown  on  counter  I  when  that  machine  was 
inspected  by  the  judges  before  they  started  voting.  That 
vote  does  not  show  that  the  line  "I"  was  not  locked  out. 

"Mr.  Deneen.  They  certified  at  8  o'clock  the  night  be- 
fore that  the  machine  was  set  right;  they  examined  it 
then. 

"Mr.  HoFF.  They  don't  open  the  machine  the  night 
before.  The  form  was  gotten  up  so  that  if  the  judges 
found  the  counters  with  a  count  on  them  the  judges  would 
make  a  record  of  it  and  deduct  it  at  the  end  of  the  day." 
3223  Mr.  King.  36th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4798.  Seal  number,  586;  protective 
counter  before,  blank ;  after,  blank ;  public  counter,  143. 

Eecount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,900 ;  after,  3,043 ; 
public  counter,  143;  seal  number,  5949,  not  sealed. 

' '  Mr.  CzAKNECKi.  The  seal  number  read  off  by  Mr.  Mul- 
downey  is  the  number  of  the  seal  we  found  on  the  machine 
at  the  time  of  the  recount.  If  a  new  seal  w^as  put  on  we 
noted  it  and  the  number."    *     *     * 

3225  ' '  The  supposition  was  that  the  seal  put  on  by  the  judges 
was  left  on  until  the  State's  Attorney  contest.  The  orig- 
inal seals  were  placed  on  by  the  judges  in  the  presence  of 
the  clerks,  policemen,  watchers,  and  so  forth,  and  the  new 
seals  were  found  on  the  day  the  contest  by  the  Commis- 
sioners, their  clerks  and  assistants,  and  representatives 
of  the  contestants,  Cunnea,  Rinaker  and  Hoyne." 

3226  "Mr.  McEwen.  Did  you  ever  ask  any  of  the  judges 
or  clerks  to  explain  the  discrepancy? 

"Mr.  CzABNECKi.    No,  sir,  we  didn't. 

' '  Mr.  Deneen.  The  election  judges  knew  of  these  dis- 
crepancies 1 

' '  Mr.  CzAENECKi.  They  did  not  until  after  the  recount, 
and  then  when  Ave  were  making  an  investigation  under 
the  various  things,  we  went  on  until  we  were  asked  by 
Judge  Cooper's  grand  jury  to  go  no  further  lest  we 
interfere  with  some  of  their  investigation." 

Mr.  Czarnecki  may  have  talked  over  a  possible  ex- 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  633 

planation  of  these  discrepancies  with  somebody  in  the 
office. 

3227  Something  was  said  about  two  seals  having  been  sent 
out  where  the  seals  were  broken  by  the  judges  in  handling. 
The  seals  cannot  be  locked  a  second  time. 

3228  "The  Chaibman.  Mr.  Czarnecki,  as  I  understand  it, 
the  machines,  after  the  election,  in  the  various  precincts, 
are  put  in  these  boxes,  the  same  boxes  in  which  they  are 
carried  to  the  precinct! 

"Mr.  CzABNECKi.     Exactly. 

"The  Chaikman.    And  the  box  is  locked? 

"Mr.  CzAKNECKi.  Locked  *  *  *  The  seal  is  already 
put  on  the  machine  by  the  judges  before  it  is  put  in  the 
box  and  locked,  and  there  was  no  reason  for  taking  the 
machine  out  of  the  box  after  that." 

Mr.  King.  37th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4479.  Seal,  blank;  protective  coun- 
ter before,  blank;  after,  141;  public  counter,  114. 

Eecount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,025 ;  after,  3,169 ; 
public  counter,  144;  seal  number,  2419. 

3230  Mr.  King.  Precinct  1,  ward  32.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4661.  Seal  number,  474 ;  protective  counter 
before,  3,225;  after,  3,322;  public  counter,  77.  There  is 
a  notation  to  the  effect  that  "Seal  474  was  broken  and 
had  to  be  put  on  the  machine  as  best  it  might  be." 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,322 
public  counter,  77;  seal  number,  474. 

Mr.  King.  2d  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4654.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,096;  after,  3,149;  public  counter,  53. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,096 ;  after,  3,149 
public  counter,  53;  seal  number,  749. 

3231  Mr.  King.  4th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4648.  Seal,  798;  protective  counter  before 
blank;  after,  3,558;  public  counter,  104. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,454 ;  after,  3,558 
public  counter,  104;  seal,  798. 

Mr.  King.  5th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4,676.  Seal,  blank ;  protective  counter  before 
2,747;  after,  2,836;  public  counter,  89. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,747 ;  after,  2,836 
public  counter,  89;  seal  number,  957. 

Mr.  King.  6th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate 
Machine  No.  4375.  Seal,  635;  protective  counter  before 
blank;  after,  3,155;  public  counter,  72. 


634  Return  Discrepancies — Continued. 

Eecount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,08S;  after,  3,155 ; 
public  counter,  72;  seal  number,  635. 

Mr.  King.  8th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4655.  Seal,  482;  protective  counter  before, 
3,655;  after,  3,655;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,655 ;  after,  3,716 ; 
public  counter,  61 ;  seal  number,  628. 

3232  Mr.  King.  9th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4390.  Seal,  890.  Protective  counter,  before, 
blank;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  76. 

Eecount :  Protective  counter  before,  2,983 ;  after,  3,059 ; 
public  counter,  76 ;  seal  number,  604 ;  not  sealed. 

Mr.  King.  15th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4671.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  blank;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  5,473 ;  after,  5,579 ; 
public  counter,  106;  seal  number,  783. 

Mr.  King.  18th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4757 ;  seal,  blank ;  protective  counter 
before,  blank;  after,  6,129;  public  counter,  105. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  6,024 ;  after,  6,129 ; 
public  counter,  105;  no  seal. 

3233  Mr.  King.  19th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4686.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  5,108;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  5,108 ;  after,  5,212 ; 
public  counter,  104 ;  seal  number,  963. 

Mr.  King.  20th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  4637.  Seal,  722;  protective  counter 
before,  blank;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  3,231. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,231 ;  after,  3,332 ; 
public  counter,  101 ;  seal  number,  722. 

Mr.  King.  21st  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4669.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  blank;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  4,801 ;  after,  4,870 ; 
public  counter,  69;  seal  number,  976. 

Mr.  King.  24th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4638.  Seal  number,  941;  protective 
coijnter  before,  3,861 ;  after,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,985 ; 
public  counter,  124;  seal  number,  941. 

Mr.  King.  26th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Certificate  num- 
ber 1,  Machine  No.  773 ;  certificate  number  2,  Machine  No. 


Return  Discrepancies — Continued.  635 

4677.  Seal  number,  497 ;  protective  counter  before,  blank ; 
after  4,698;  public  counter,  90. 

Eecount:  Machine  No.  4677.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 4,608 ;  after,  4,698 ;  public  counter,  90. 

3234  Mr.  King.  27th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate, Machine  No.  337.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  blank;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  73. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4649.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,297 ;  after,  3,370 ;  public  counter,  73 ;  seal  number, 
620. 

Mr.  King.  28th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4650.  Seal,  624;  protective  counter 
before,  3,637;  after,  3,774;  public  counter,  141. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,632 ;  after,  3,774 ; 
public  counter,  142;  seal  number,  624.  Notation:  "One 
registered  on  public  register  at  the  opening  of  the  polls 
by  the  judges." 

3235  Mr.  King.  29th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  not  given.  Protective  counter  before, 
blank;  after,  3,141;  public  counter,  123. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4655.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,018;  after,  3,141;  public  counter,  127;  seal,  675. 

Mr.  King.  30th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4367.  Seal  number,  485;  protective 
counter  before,  3,035 ;  after,  3,162 ;  public  counter,  127. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,035 ;  after,  3,162 ; 
public  counter,  127;  seal  number,  645. 

Mr.  King.  31st  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4657.  Seal,  622;  protective  counter 
before,  blank;  after,  3,717;  public  counter,  171. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,546 ;  after,  3,717 ; 
public  counter,  171;  no  seal. 

Mr.  King.  33d  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4659.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,187;  after,  3,262;  public  counter,  75.  Notation  on 
certificate  number  2,  "polling  place  locked  up  and  w^ere 
unable  to  find  man  with  key  and  so  did  not  enter  the 
polling  place.  (Signed)  Miles  B.  Fernald,  A.  J.  Corbul, 
J.  G.  Lynch." 

3236  Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,262 ; 
public  counter,  75;  no  seal  number. 

Mr.  King.  36th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certifi- 
cate. Machine  No.  4505.  Seal,  blank;  protective  counter 
before,  3,535 ;  protective  counter  after,  3,657 ;  public  coun- 
ter, 122. 


636  Testimony  of  M.  F.  McMahon. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4504.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 3,535 ;  after,  3,657 ;  public  counter,  122 ;  seal,  632. 

Mr.  King.  38th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4558.  Seal,  blank ;  protective  counter  before, 
blank;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  3,428 ;  after,  3,535 ; 
public  counter,  107;  seal  number,  627. 

3237  Mr.  King.  40th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate. 
Machine  No.  4226.  Seal,  694 ;  protective  counter  before, 
blank;  after,  blank;  public  counter,  blank. 

Recount:  Machine  No.  4524.  Protective  counter  be- 
fore, 4,226 ;  after,  4,227 ;  public  counter,  51 ;  seal  number, 
964. 

Mr.  King.  42d  precinct,  32d  ward.  Judge's  certificate, 
Machine  No.  4513.  Seal,  575;  protective  counter  before, 
blank;  after,  3,158;  public  counter,  36. 

Recount :  Protective  counter  before,  blank ;  after,  3,158 ; 
public  counter,  36 ;  seal  number,  757. 

Michael  F.  McMahon: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

3238  Resides  at  2834  North  Sacramento  Avenue.  Investi- 
gator for  John  A.  Northup.  Worked  for  Rinaker  on  the 
recount.  On  the  recount  the  ballots  were  first  examined 
and  then  investigators  went  over  to  the  warehouse  to 
examine  the  voting  machine  record. 

3239  The  witness  took  off  the  figures  from  the  last  six  voting 
machines  recounted.  They  were  used  in  the  second  ward, 
and  made  a  notation  as  to  the  condition  of  the  seals. 

The  first  precinct  32d  ward.  "Seal  not  intact,  rope 
tied  around."     Witness  reads  from  memorandum. 

3240  Witness  saw  the  machines  taken  out  of  the  box  for  the 
recount,  ten  or  fifteen  at  a  time,  and  as  they  were  exam- 
ined, they  were  immediately  put  back  into  the  boxes. 

3242  6th  precinct,  32d  ward.  "Seal  not  intact." 
8th  precinct,  32d  ward.  ' '  Seal  not  intact. ' ' 
9th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact." 

12th  precinct,  32d  ward.    ' '  Seal  not  in  proper  place. ' ' 

3243  14th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact." 
16th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact." 
17th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact." 
18th  precinct,  32d  Avard.     "No  seal." 

23d  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact." 

25th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  in  proper  place." 


Witness'  Record  of  Condition  of  Seals.  637 

28th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  in  proper  place." 
30th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  in  proper  place." 
31st  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact." 
33d  precinct,  32d  ward.    "No  seal." 
35th  precinct,  32d  ward.    ' '  Seal  not  intact. ' ' 
37th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact." 
42d  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact." 
46th  precinct,  32d  ward.    ' '  Seal  not  intact. ' ' 
47th  precinct,  32d  ward.    "Seal  not  intact."" 
31st  ward.  1st  precinct.  "Seal  not  intact." 
5th  precinct.    "Seal  not  intact." 
7th  precinct.    "Seal  not  intact." 
10th  precinct.    "Seal  not  intact." 
12th  precinct.    *  *  Seal  not  intact. ' ' 
13th  precinct.    "No  seal." 
18th  precinct.    "No  seal." 

19th,  20th,  23d,  28th,  30th,  33d,  35th,  36th,  38th.  "Seal 
not  intact."    39th,  "No  seal." 

25th  ward.    1st  precinct.    "Seal  not  intact." 

3d  precinct.    "  Seal  not  intact. " 

4th  precinct.     "Seal  not  intact." 

6th  precinct.    "Not  sealed." 

8th  precinct.     "Not  sealed." 

9th  precinct.    "Not  sealed." 

10th  precinct.    ' '  Seal  not  intact. ' ' 

11th  precinct.    ' '  Seal  not  intact. ' ' 

3245  13th  precinct.    "Not  sealed." 
14th  precinct.    "Not  sealed." 

16th,  17th,  18th,  19th,  21st,  22d.    "Seal  not  intact." 
26th.    "Sealed  with  wire." 
29th.     "Seal  not  intact." 
30th.    "Not  sealed." 
32d.    "Seal  not  intact." 
37th.    "Not  sealed." 
39th.    "Not  sealed." 
42d.    "Not  sealed." 

26th  ward.    1st,  5th,  6th.    "Seal  not  intact." 
9th.     "Not  sealed." 

10th,  11th,  20th,  22d,  24th,  29th,  32d,  33d,  34th,  36th, 
37th.    "Seal  not  intact." 
38th.    "Seal  not  intact." 
39th.    "Not  sealed;  tied  with  string." 

3246  22d  ward.    8th  precinct  no  seal  found. 
12th.    ' '  Seal  broken  and  wired. ' ' 

17th,  23d,  26th,  48th.    "Seal  not  intact." 


638  Testimony  of  M.  F.  McMahon. 

3247     18th  ward.    1st,  4th,  6th,  9th,  12th.    "Seal  not  intact." 
13th.    "Not  sealed;  broken;  rope  on  top." 
16th.     "Seal  not  intact." 
26th.    "Seal  broken. 
28th.    "No  seal  found." 
31st,  40th,  49th.    "Seal  not  intact." 
50th.    "No  seal  found." 
52d.    "Seal  not  intact." 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3250  Witness'  attention  is  called  to  certain  erasures  on  his 
memorandum,  and  says  he  sometimes  compared  memo- 
randums with  the  Socialist  investigator,  and  one  or  two 
mistakes  might  have  been  corrected  in  this  way. 

3251  Witness  never  compared  his  figures  taken  off  at  the 
time  of  the  recount,  with  the  figures  as  returned  by  the 
judges  and  clerks  of  election.  His  figures  are  those 
called  up  by  Mr.  Czarnecki  and  others  from  the  voting 
machine  at  the  time  of  the  recount. 

3252  After  making  his  memorandum  witness  took  it  over 
to  Mr.  Ayer's  office  and  left  it  there  where  they  have 
remained  ever  since. 

3254  Witness  does  not  know  whether  the  figures  he  took 
from  the  voting  machines  have  ever  been  compared  with 
the  returns  of  the  judges  and  clerks  of  election. 

Witness  produces  his  memorandum  relating  to  wards 
1,  6,  18,  21,  31,  32,  25  and  26. 

3256  Mr.  McEwen  contends  that  the  whole  memorandum 
should  be  read  into  evidence.  Mr.  Deneen,  that  it  is 
put  in  to  show  the  condition  of  the  seals  only,  and  should 
be  limited  to  that  purpose;  and  for  that  reason  the  whole 
memorandum  is  not  admissible;  that  information  was 
furnished  by  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Northup  and  only  for 
the  purpose  stated. 

3261  Mr.  McEwen  contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  have  read 
into  the  record  the  figures  of  the  recount  taken  as  shown 
by  the  memorandum  used  by  the  witness. 

3265  "  Examined  by  Mr.  McEwen,  the  witness  says  he  could 
not  have  testified  from  memory  without  reference  to  his 
memorandum. 

(A  motion  is  here  made  by  Mr.  McEwen  to  strike  out 
all  the  testimony  of  the  witness  concerning  the  condi- 
tion of  the  seals  and  all  matters  testified  to  by  the  wit- 
ness from  memoranda.) 


Testimony  of  J.  J.  Middowney.  639 

VOLUME  XXIX. 

Morning  Session. 
Friday,  April  24,  1914. 
J.  J.  Muldowney: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

3269  The  record  of  the  recount  shows  in  the  3d  precinct  of 
the  1st  ward,  no  seal.    2433  is  the  new  seal. 

11th  precinct,  1st  ward.     Seal  number  899. 
5th  precinct,  2d  ward.    Seal  number  was  837.    New  seal 
put  on,  5995. 

3270  44th  precinct,  6th  ward,  no  seal;  resealed,  853.  14th 
precinct,  6th  ward,  seal  was  2421 ;  new  seal  put  on,  888. 

45th  precinct,  7th  ward ;  seal  number,  545,  broken ;  new 
seal,  856. 

37th  precinct,  7th  ward;  "It  is  hard  to  tell  the  number 
of  the  seal."  "There  was  no  vote  cast  on  the  machine." 

15th  precinct,  7th  ward ;  seal  number  544,  broken ;  new 
seal,  939. 

3271  The  rule  was  that  the  judges  should  put  on  the  seals 
shown  in  their  certificates  when  the  machine  was  closed 
after  election.  Witness  does  not  know  whether  the  judges 
did  this  or  not. 

3272  2d  precinct,  7th  ward,  no  seal;  new  seal,  908. 
13th  precinct,  7th  ward,  no  voting  on  machine. 

14th  precinct,  7th  ward ;  seal  number,  569 ;  new  seal,  877. 
25th  precinct,  7th  ward,  wax  covered  seal;  resealed, 
15377. 
39th  precinct,  7th  ward,  sealed  with  wax ;  resealed,  868. 
No  cross-examination. 

Lawrence  F.  King,  recalled. 

Further  Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

3273  Witness  testifies  that  the  poll  books  he  has  produced 
are  those  returned  by  the  judges  and  clerks  of  election 
showing  the  machine  number,  the  number  of  protective 
counters,  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  King.  2d  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank ; 
protective  counter,  blank ;  public  counter,  blank. 


'was,' 


"was,' 


640  Defective  Judges'  Certificates. 

3d  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.  4723;  protective 
counter,  blank. 

3277  5th  precinct,  2d  ward.    Protective  counter,  blank. 

7th  precinct.  Precinct  number,  blank;  ward,  blank; 
voting  machine  number,  blank;  "was,"  blank;  protective 
counter,  blank. 

(Note:  The  word  "was"  means  protective  counter  be- 
fore.) 

3278  9th  precinct,  1st  w^ard.    Voting  machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

10th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank 
blank;  protective  counter  before,  no  signature. 

13tli  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3279  20th  precinct,  1st  ward.    Machine  No.,  blank 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank;  signed  by  all  judges 
and  clerks.  This  was  the  precinct  where  the  20  votes  were 
cast  on  the  machine,  when  it  recorded  but  one. 

21st  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank;  no  signature. 

22d  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

26th  precinct,  1st  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

27th  precinct,  1st  ward.    Machine  No.  2698;  "was"  8 
protective  counter,  11 ;  in  one  of  the  books.     In  the  other, 
Machine  No.  2G98,  "was"  11;  protective  counter,  "was' 
8. 

30th  precinct,  1st  ward.     Machine  No.  4749;  "was' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

31st  precinct,  1st  ward.     Machine  No.  4833;  "was' 
zero;  protective  counter,  2,785. 

32d  precinct,  1st  ward.     Machine  No.,  blank;  "was' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

33d  precinct,  1st  ward.     Machine  No.  4818;  "was' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

34th  precinct,  1st  ward.    Machine  No.  erased;  "was' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 
3281    35th  precinct,  1st  ward.     Machine  No.  4751;  "was' 
76 ;  protective  counter,  blank, 

39th  precinct.  Machine  No.  4755;  "was"  blank;  protec 
tive  counter,  blank. 

40th  precinct,  1st  ward.     Machine  No.  4815;  "was 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 


'was' 


)) 


Defective  Certificates — Continued.  641 

42d  precinct,  1st  ward.  Macliine  No.,  blank;  "was" 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

2d  ward,  3d  precinct.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was" 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

6th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was" 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3282  The  Witness.    "Was"  means  protective  counter. 

7th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was" 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

8th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was" 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

9th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was" 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

12th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.  4525;  "was" 
blank;  protective  counter  was  3,246;  on  one  book,  blank 
on  the  other. 

18tli  precinct,  2d  ward.  Precinct  number,  blank ;  ward 
number,  blank;  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was"  blank. 

27th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was" 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3283  31st  precinct,  2d  ward.  Precinct  number,  blank;  ward 
number,  blank;  machine  number,  blank;  "was,"  blank; 
protective  counter,  blank. 

32d  precinct,  2d  ward.  Precinct  number,  blank ;  ward 
number,  blank;  machine  number,  blank;  "was,"  blank; 
protective  counter,  blank. 

35th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.  4508 ;  ' '  was, "  31 ; 
protective  counter,  blank. 

38th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

40th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  number,  in  one  book, 
120 ;  * '  was, "  16  in  one  book,  and  blank  in  the  other ;  pro- 
tective counter,  blank. 

43d  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank ; '  *  was, ' ' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3284  45th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Precinct  number,  blank ;  ward 
number,  blank;  machine  number,  blank;  "was,"  blank; 
protective  counter,  blank. 

47th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.  4602 ;  ' '  was, "  29 ; 
protective  counter,  blank. 

48th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Precinct  number,  blank ;  ward 
number,  blank;  machine  number,  blank;  "was,"  blank; 
protective  counter,  blank. 

50th  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.  4539;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 


642  Defective  Certificates — Continued. 

51st  precinct,  2d  ward.  Machine  No.  4537;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  4,886. 

3285  6th  ward,  5th  precinct.     Machine  No.  4634;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

6th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.  4373;  "was," 
64  in  one  book;  blank  in  the  other;  protective  counter, 
blank. 

8th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

9th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

11th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Precinct  number,  blank; 
ward  number,  blank;  machine  number,  blank;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

12th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.  4396;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3286  15th  precinct,  6th  ward.    Machine  No.,  blank;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

19th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

20th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Precinct  number,  blank ;  ward 
number,  blank;  machine  number,  blank;  "was,"  blank; 
protective  counter,  blank. 

21st  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.  4495;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

22d  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.  4499;  "was," 
nothing ;  protective  counter  was  56. 

29th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3287  32d    precinct,    6th    ward.     Machine    number,    blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

35th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

39th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
' '  was, ' '  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

40th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

42d  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

44th  precinct,  6th  ward.  Machine  No.  4594;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3288  7th  ward,  2d  precinct.    Machine  number,  blank ; ' '  was, ' ' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3d  precinct,   7th  ward.     Machine   No.  4632;   "was," 


Defective  Certificates — Continued.  643 

' '  none ; ' '  protective  counter  in  one  book,  the  word  ' '  none, ' ' 
the  other,  blank. 

5th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  No.  4463;  "was," 
2656 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

7th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  No.,  blank;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

10th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

12th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  No.  4595;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3289  13th    precinct,    7th    ward.     Machine    number,    blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

14tli  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

16tli  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

17th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

18th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

19th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3290  20th    precinct,    7th    ward.     Machine    number,    blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

22d  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank'; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

24th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

25tli  precinct,  7tli  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

26tli  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  No.  4596;  "was," 
blank  in  one  book;  "was,"  4  in  other  book;  protective 
counter,  blank. 

3291  27th  precinct,  7th  ward.     Machine  No.  4368;  "was," 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

33d  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  No.  4584;  "was," 
3425 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

35th  precinct,  7tli  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
*  *  was, ' '  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

36th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  No.  4583;  "was," 
3547 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

39th  precinct,  7th  ward.  Machine  No.  4366;  "was," 
3273 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

18th  ward,  10th  precinct.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 


644  Defective  Certificates — Continued. 

3292  11th  precinct,  18th  ward.    Machine  No.  4662 ;"  was, " 
77 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

12th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
'  'was, ' '  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

17tli  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

21st  ward,  2d  precinct.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3d  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3293  5tli    precinct,    21st    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

6th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  4700;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

8th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  3243;  protective  counter,  blank. 

11th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

13th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  122;  "was,' 
3,084 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

14th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3294  15tli   precinct,    21st   ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

17th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
' '  was, ' '  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

18th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  4684;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

19tli  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  No.  4859;  "was,' 
45 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

21st  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3295  22d  precinct,   21st   ward.    Machine  No.  4701;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  3130. 

23d  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

24th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  4821 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

25th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

26th  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

29tli  precinct,  21st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 


Defective  Certificates — Continued. 


645 


3296  31st  precinct,  21st  ward.    Machine  No.  4678;  "was," 
blank;  "one  spoil;"  protective  counter,  3,489. 

32d  precinct,    21st    ward.     Machine    number,    blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

33d  precinct,  21st  ward.     Machine  No.  4846;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

34th   precinct,   21st   ward.    Machine   number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

35th    precinct,    21st    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3297  37th   precinct,   21st   ward.    Machine   number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

38th    precinct,    21st    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

40th    precinct,    21st    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

41st    precinct,    21st    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

42d    precinct,    21st    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

44th   precinct,    21st    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  in  one  book;  52,  in  the  other;  protective 
counter  blank  in  one  book,  and  2,840  in  the  other. 

3298  49th  precinct,  21st  ward.     Machine  No.  50;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  2,997. 

25th   ward.     2d   precinct.      Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3d  precinct,  25th  ward.    Machine  No.  4468 ; ' '  was, ' '  116 
protective  counter,  blank. 

6th    precinct,    25th    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

8th    precinct,    25th    ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

10th  precinct,  25th  ward.     Machine  No.  4452;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3299  11th   precinct,    25th   ward.     Machine   number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

12th   precinct,   25th   ward.    Machine   number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

18th  precinct,  25th  ward.     Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

19th  precinct,   25th  ward.     Machine   number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

22d  precinct,  25th  ward.     Machine  No.  471;  "was," 
121;  protective  counter,  blank. 


was," 


was," 


"was," 


646  Defective  Certificates — Continued. 

23d  precinct,  25th  ward.  Machine  No.  4644;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  in  one  book,  3,370;  blank  in 
the  other. 

3300  25th  precinct,   25th  ward.     Machine  number,   blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

27th  precinct,  25th  ward.    Machine  No.  4481 
3,158;  protective  counter,  3,281. 

SOth  precinct,  25th  ward.     Machine  No.  4470 
4,039;  protective  counter,  4,058. 

32d  precinct,  25th  ward.     Machine  No.  4486 
3,787;  protective  counter,  blank. 

33d  precinct,  25th  ward.     Machine  No.  4473 
zero;  protective  counter,  3,730. 

34th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3301  37th  precinct,   25th  ward.     Machine  number,   blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

38th  precinct,  25th  ward.  Machine  No.  4477;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

26tli  ward,  1st  precinct.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  3,639. 

3d  precinct,  26th  ward.  Machine  No.  4421;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

5th  precinct,  26th  ward.     Machine  No.  4436;  "was," 
80;    protective    counter,    blank.      Notation,    "Machine 
showed  81,  but  only  80  voted.     Lever  thrown  once  by 
mistake.    Forgot  to  enter  this." 
3303     12th  precinct,   26th  ward.     Machine  number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

13th  precinct,   26th  ward.     Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

15th  precinct,   26th  ward.     Machine  number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

17th  precinct,  26th  ward.     Machine  No.  4429;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  6,286. 

18th  precinct,   26th  ward.     Machine  number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

21st   precinct,    26th    ward.     Machine   number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

22d    precinct,    26th    ward.    Machine    number,    4420 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

26th  precinct,  26th  ward.     Machine  number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

28th   precinct,    26th   ward.     Machine    number,   blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 


Defective  Certificates — Continued.  647 

3304  29th   precinct,    26tli   ward.     Machine   number,    blank 
"was,"  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

30th  precinct,  26th  ward.  Machine  No.  4444;  "was,' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

38tli  precinct,  26th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

31st  ward,  4th  precinct.  Machine  No.  4852;  "was,' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

8th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

10th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

13th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3305  14th   precinct,    31st   ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

16th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

25th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  No.  4560;  "was,' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

27th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  No.  4643;  "was,' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

30th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

31st  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  No.  4825;  "was,' 
blank ;  in  one  book ;  403  in  the  other ;  protective  counter 
blank. 

34th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3306  37th   precinct,    31st   ward.     Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

40th  precinct,  31st  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

32d  ward,  2d  precinct.  Machine  No.  4654;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  3,096. 

3d  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4645;  "was,' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

7th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

8th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

11th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4647;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3307  12th  precinct,  32d  ward.       Machine  number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 


648  Defective  Certificates — Continued. 

13th  precinct,  32d  ward.     Machine  No.  4652;  "was 
41;  protective  counter,  255. 

14th  precinct,  32d  ward.     Machine  No.  4419 
73 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

15th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4671;  "was,' 
106;  protective  counter,  blank. 

18th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

21st  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

23rd  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

25th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4640;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

3308  27tli    precinct,    32d    ward.     Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

28th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4650;  "was,' 
367 ;  protective  counter,  3,774. 

29th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  123;  protective  counter,  3,141. 

30th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  127;  "was,' 
3,035;  protective  counter,  3,162. 

31st  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  171;  "was,' 
3,717 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

32d  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  145;  "was,' 
3,335 ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

35th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4656;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  133. 

3309  37th  precinct,  32d  ward.       Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

38th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

39tli  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  Ill;  "was,' 
3,242;  protective  counter,  blank. 

40th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

42d  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4513;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  3,122. 

43d  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4379;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

45th  precinct,  32d  ward.  Machine  No.  4517;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 


Defective  Certificates — Continued.  649 

3312  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

18th  ward,  1st  precinct.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

2d  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  807;  "was,"  the 
word  "none;"  protective  counter,  2,800. 

9th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4808;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  2,901. 

3313  22d  precinct,  18th   ward.       Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

26th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

28th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

30th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4717;  in  one 
book;  in  the  other,  blank;  "was,"  blank;  protective 
counter,  blank. 

31st  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

35th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.,  in  one  book 
4716;  in  the  other,  blank;  "was,"  blank;  protective  coun 
ter,  blank. 

3314  36th  precinct,  18th  ward.       Machine    number,    blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

37th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  3677  B ;  the 
other,  blank;  "was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank 

38th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

39th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  708;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

41st  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

42d  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4732;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  4,151. 

43d  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 

44th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4690;  "was,' 
blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

46th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

47th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

48th  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4707;  "was,' 
blank ;  protective  counter,  blank. 


650  Testimony  of  J.  F.  Cleary. 

50th  precinct,  IStli  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

51st  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  number,  blank; 
"was,"  blank;  protective  counter,  blank. 

53d  precinct,  18th  ward.  Machine  No.  4694;  "was," 
blank;  protective  counter,  3,145. 

3316  The  records  produced  by  the  witness  are  election  rec- 
ords received  by  the  witness  as  custodian  for  the  Elec- 
tion Commissioners  of  the  city  of  Chicago  as  the  records 
involved  in  the  State's  Attorney  recount. 

3317  Witness  has  produced  these  records  in  response  to  an 
order  entered  by  Judge  Baldwin. 

Joseph  F.  Cleary. 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3318  Eesides  at  1922  South  Ridgeway  avenue.  Witness  is 
an  electrician  and  a  member  of  Local  134,  International 
Brotherhood  of  Electrical  Workers. 

Local  134  has  conducted  its  elections  the  last  seven 
years  with  voting  machines,  using  the  Columbia  first, 
and  for  the  last  two  years  the  Empire  voting  machine. 

3319  At  their  election  of  1913,  1,535  voted  on  the  ma- 
chine between  11  in  the  morning,  and  7  in  the  evening. 
There  were  about  100  candidates  for  22  offices. 

In  1912,  about  100  less  voters  voted  for  twice  this  num- 
ber of  candidates  between  the  same  hours. 

3320  There  was  no  complaint  regarding  the  operation  of  the 
voting  machine. 

3321  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Before  voting  three  hours  were  spent  in  inspecting  the 
voting  machine  and  a  count  was  taken  off  immediately 
after  the  voting  closed,  when  the  machines  were  again 
inspected. 


Testimony  of  R.  A.  Shields  and  M.  E.  Abt.  651 

EicHARD  A.  Shields. 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3323  Eesides  at  484  South  Schofield  avenue,  Oak  Park.  Wit- 
ness is  an  electrician.  Financial  secretary  of  Local  Elec- 
tricians'  Union. 

They  have  used  the  Empire  voting  machines  at  their 
elections  for  the  last  two  years.  Empire  machines  which 
they  got  from  the  city.  They  formerly  had  used  the  Col- 
umbia voting  machine. 

3324  They  examined  the  machines  before  the  election  and 
found  them  to  be  all  right,  and  no  complaint  was  made 
unless  the  voter  tried  to  vote  for  more  than  the  proper 
number  of  candidates. . 

1,300  voters  voted  on  the  machine  between  11  and  7. 

3325  Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

A  committee  examined  the  machine  before  election  to 
see  that  the  machine  was  not  fraudulently  adjusted. 

Electrical  workers  are  all  more  or  less  mechanics.  A 
check  was  kept  on  the  persons  voting  by  checking  them 
off  on  the  register.  Other  unions  used  the  voting  ma- 
chine. 

3327  Martha  E.  Abt. 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Resides  at  5301  Indiana  avenue.  Chairman  of  the 
Washington  Park  Civic  League. 

Witness  came  to  the  Election  Commissioners'  office 
and  learned  how  to  use  the  voting  machine  and  taught 
women  voters  how  to  use  it. 

A  machine  for  instruction  purposes  was  sent  to  her 
by  the  Election  Commissioners  to  4949  Indiana  avenue, 
the  Civic  Training  School  for  Home  and  Foreign  Mis- 
sions, and  was  kept  there  from  November  to  just  before 
February  primaries. 

3328  No  complaint  was  made  about  the  working  of  the  ma- 
chine by  anybody. 

3330  The  witness  was  Progressive  judge  of  election  m  the 
26th  precinct  of  the  26tli  ward. 


652  Testimony  of  F.  Murphy. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  was  recommended  for  appointment  as  judge  of 
election  by  Harry  F.  Porter,  acting  chairman  of  tlie  6tli 
ward.     Her  services  were  voluntary. 

3331  Women  voters  sometimes  watched  the  counters  at  the 
back  while  other  women  voters  were  voting. 

3333  Witness  never  saw  a  voting  machine  worked  on  elec- 
tion day  but  had  recommended  that  voting  machines  be 
used  at  the  elections  of  the  Civic  League  which  had  a 
membership  of  2,300. 

Frank  Muephy. 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Resides  at  712  Waveland  avenue. 

Witness  is  contract  clerk  for  the  Department  of  Public 
Works,  City  of  Chicago,  for  17  years,  and  is  familiar 
with  the  practice  of  letting  public  contracts  in  regard  to 
the  time  stated  in  advertisements  for  letting  the  same. 

Ten  days'  advertisement  is  required  by  the  ordinances 
of  the  City  of  Chicago.  In  case  of  large  contracts,  such 
as  building  a  tunnel,  the  City  Hall,  and  so  forth,  the  De- 
partment of  Public  Works  may  allow  21  days;  but  not 
to  exceed  30  days. 

3335  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Models  are  in  some  cases  required  to  be  furnished  by 
the  bidders.  A  model  of  a  building  like  the  City  Hall 
would  require  more  than  30  days. 
3337  If  a  voting  machine  were  entirely  new  and  never  had 
been  in  existence,  10  days '  time  would  not  be  enough  and 
certainly  more  time  would  not  harm  the  city's  interests. 
If  the  time  is  too  short  it  would  harm  the  city's  inter- 
ests. 

Before  letting  the  tunnel  contract,  the  city  got  all  the 
figures  that  could  possibly  be  gotten  by  people  in  that 
line  of  work,  and  after  that  21  days  was  enough.  No- 
body complained  it  was  too  short  a  time. 


Testimony  of  C.  L.  Hampton  and  W.  Fisher.         653 

3338  Re-Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Ten  days  would  be  enough  time  in  an  advertisement 
for  the  purpose  of  a  patent  article  where  the  model  was 
already  in  existence  or  in  stock  and  it  was  only  a  ques- 
tion of  being  able  to  deliver. 

3339  Where  complaints  were  made  that  the  time  is  too  short, 
we  usually  extend  the  time.  "No  extension  I  know  of  has 
exceeded  30  days." 

3339-40  Re-Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Where  the  voting  machine  was  already  selected  it  was 
only  a  question  of  making  a  larger  one,  changing  from 
a  70  to  an  88-key,  for  instance,  ten  days  would  be  enough ; 
but  if  the  advertisement  was  for  voting  machines  gener- 
ally, and  there  was  nothing  else  to  go  by,  ten  days  would 
not  be  enough. 

In  answer  to  a  question  of  Senator  Landee's,  witness 
says  he  does  not  think  a  machine  provided  with  a  device 
for  voting  a  cumulative  vote  on  members  of  the  general 
assembly  could  be  invented  in  ten  days. 

3341  The  city's  advertisement  usually  asks  for  something 
that  will  comply  with  the  law  and  the  specifications  made 
by  the  department,  and  anybody  can  bid  on  them  and  does 
so  on  his  own  responsibility. 

3342  Bids  are  not  advertised  for  before  the  City  Council 
has  made  an  appropriation  for  the  purpose. 

For  the  Department  of  Public  Works  the  statutes  pro- 
vide how  the  contracts  can  be  let.  The  Department  fol- 
lows the  statutes. 


Custer  L.  Hampton. 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3343  Resides  at  2724  Indiana  avenue.  Is  an  electrician  and 
business  agent  of  the  Electrical  Workers'  Union  of  the 
city. 

3344  Witness  has  attended  elections  of  the  union ;  the  union 
has  used  voting  machines  in  their  elections  and  they  have 
been  very  satisfactory. 

Most  electricians  are  more  or  less  mechanics.     The  vot- 
ing machines  used  have  been  tested  and  inspected. 


654         Testimony  of  C.  L.  Hampton  and  W.  Fisher. 

The  elections  were  strenuous  and  everybody  was  watch- 
ful of  the  voting  and  the  results. 

3345  Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

The  voting  machine  used  was  examined  the  day  pre- 
vious to  the  election,  just  before  the  election  began,  and 
after  the  voting  closed. 

William  Fisher. 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3347  Resides  at  5466  Kenwood  avenue. 

Witness  is  secretary  of  the  Stationary  Firemen's 
Union;  has  been  a  member  since  1901. 

The  elections  of  the  union  are  held  now  every  year, 
formerly  every  six  months,  ^nd  voting  machines  have 
been  used  in  these  elections ;  the  first  time  in  December, 
1907.  Witness  does  not  remember  the  name  of  the  ma- 
chine. 

3348  At  the  elections  of  1912  and  1913  the  union  secured 
a  voting  machine  from  the  Election  Commissioners,  the 
Empire. 

The  union  usually  casts  about  400  or  500  votes  and 
voting  all  day,  from  8  o'clock  A.  M.  to  8  o'clock  P.  M. 

3349  The  votes  are  cast  for  president,  vice-president,  record- 
ing secretary,  financial  secretary,  treasurer,  7  trustees, 
business  agent,  and  guardian. 

'  The  members  are  all  satisfied  with  the  use  of  voting  ma- 

chines; they  are  more  or  less  mechanics  and  understand 
machinery. 

3350  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Anybody,  whether  a  mechanic  or  not,  should  be  able  to 
vote  on  a  machine. 

Before,  during  and  after  elections  the  voting  machines 
used  are  examined  by  the  witness  and  his  associates  as 
to  its  condition. 


Testimony  of  W.  B.  Cassidy.  655 

3352  William  B.  Cassidy. 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Witness  resides  at  4900  Indiana  avenue.  Witness  is 
clerk  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Municipal  Pension 
Fund,  the  officials  of  which  are  elected  by  the  municipal 
employees  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

3353  Last  October  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  was  used 
at  their  election.  It  was  secured  from  the  Election  Com- 
missioner,— Mr.  Stuart, — and  the  election  was  held  in 
the  Election  Commissioners'  office. 

Two  candidates'  names  were  on  the  machine.  466 
votes  were  cast  for  these  candidates  by  numbers  and 
the  voting  machine  registered  only  432. 

An  account  of  this  was  published  in  the  newspapers 
at  the  time. 

3354  Cr OSS-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Witness  did  not  examine  the  public  counter  or  pro- 
tective counter  of  the  voting  machine,  nor  the  counters 
for  any  candidate. 

Witness  was  present  in  the  room  at  the  time  of  voting. 
■  Mr.  Harry  E.  Wallace  and  Mr.  Bernard  McMahon,  trus- 

tees, examined  the  machines  and  made  a  certificate. 

3356  The  persons  who  voted  on  the  machine  the  day  of  elec- 
tion were  all  who  were  eligible  on  the  September  payroll 
and  who  had  made  application  to  participate. 

3357  The  witness  did  not  vote,  is  not  eligible,  and  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  election,  except  as  clerk  of  the  board. 

3358  _  The  witness  got  up  all  the  records  as  to  who  were  eli- 
gible, and  so  forth,  and  was  present  all  day  at  the  time 
and  place  of  the  election ;  giving  out  copies  of  the  law,  and 
so  forth,  and  helped  check  off  the  names  of  members  who 
applied  for  a  voting  card. 

The  Election  Commissioners '  office  furnished  the  judges 
and  clerks  of  election. 

3359  About  1,700  votes  were  cast ;  about  one-fourth  were  ma- 
chine votes  and  the  rest  were  ballots. 


656  Testimony  of  L.  F.  King. 

Lawrence  F.  King  resumes  the  stand. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3360  The  witness  produces  tally-sheets  made  by  the  judges 
and  clerks  of  election  in  voting  machine  precincts. 

3361  One  of  these  is  returned  to  the  City  Clerk,  the  other 
to  the  Election  Commissioners ;  the  same  as  to  paper  bal- 
lot tally-sheets. 

In  machine  precincts  there  are  also  two  "statements 
of  votes,"  one  returned  to  the  Comptroller  and  one  to 
the  City  Clerk. 

The  witness  secured  "statement  for  use  in  voting  ma- 
chine precincts"  from  the  Election  Commissioners'  of- 
fice. 

3362  The  witness  also  got  "statements"  from  the  County 
Clerk  and  tally-sheets  from  the  City  Clerk. 

Mr.  McEwen  offers  to  read  into  the  record  from  the 
reports  of  votes  of  voting  machines,  and  also  from  the 
tabulation  of  votes  of  recount  which  have  been  produced 
here,  the  votes  on  the  State 's  Attorney. 

Mr.  Deneen  objects  on  the  ground  that  these  reports 
have  been  offered  only  as  to  the  protective  counters  be- 
fore and  after,  the  puJblic  counter  and  seals,  and  that  the 
integrity  of  the  report  of  the  actual  vote  cast  has  been 
attacked  in  two  precincts  only,  the  20th  and  24th  pre- 
cincts of  the  1st  ward. 
3376  "The  Chairman  (To  Mr.  McEwen).  Do  you  want  to 
take  the  returns  from  the  machine  from  the  various  pre- 
cincts on  the  Prosecuting  Attorney  to  show  that  the  re- 
count, when  the  machine  was  opened,  to  show  that  they 
were  the  same? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  Yes. 
3380  "Mr.  Deneen.  According  to  the  Judge's  theory  of 
the  case — if  the  judges  and  clerks  wanted  to  make  a  false 
return  and  someone  who  had  custody  of  the  machine  at 
the  warehouse  breaks  the  seal  and  someone  who  guards 
the  vault  takes  the  key  and  locks  the  machine  and  makes 
it  conform  to  the  fraudulent  return,  there  is  no  redress, 

because  the  machine  agrees  with  the  return 

3382  "We  have  not  attacked  the  machine  on  that  theory, 
but  on  the  opportunity  shown  here  for  fraudulent  man- 
ipulation.    The  position  taken  is  that  the  machine's  in- 


Testimony  of  H.  E.  Wallace  and  B.  McMahon.        657 

tegrity  depends  on  one  man;  that  man  is  the  custodian. 
The  machine  might  have  been  fixed  beforehand. ' ' 

The  matter  was  allowed  to  stand  in  abeyance  until  the 
hearing  of  the  following  witness. 


H.  E.  Wallace  : 

Direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

3399  Witness  resides  at  2120  Gladys  avenue.  He  is  senior 
clerk  of  the  Bureau  of  Streets,  and  is  a  trustee  of  the 
Municipal  Pension  Fund. 

The  Municipal  Pension  Fund  organization  held  its  last 
election  September  20,  1913,  at  the  office  of  the  Election 
Commissioners  in  Chicago,  and  used  the  Empire  voting 
machine  secured  from  the  Election  Commissioners. 

3400  The  machine  used  was  set  by  Mr.  Muldowney  of  the 
Election  Commissioners'  office;  the  witness  did  not  per- 
sonally take  the  count  off  the  machine  after  the  election. 

3401  This  was  done  by  the  clerk  of  the  Pension  Board,  Mr. 
Cassidy.  Witness  was  there  while  the  figures  were  being 
read. 

The  figures  read  were  not  in  harmony  with  what  was 
shown  by  the  protective  counter  of  the  machine.    Witness 
read  these  counters  both  morning  and  night. 
3402'    The  number  of  voters  and  the  number  shown  by  the 
machine  did  not  agree. 

The  figures  as  taken  off  the  machine  agreed  with  the 
figures  shown  on  the  machine.  Mr.  McMahon  has  the 
figures.  (Witness  withdrawn.) 

Bernard  McMahon: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

3404  Witness  resides  at  4637  Calumet  avenue.  Is  book- 
keeper in  the  City  Collector's  office  and  trustee  of  the 
Municipal  Pension  Fund. 

At  the  last  election  three  voting  machines  were  used. 
Mr.  Muldowney  of  the  Election  Commissioners'  office 
fixed  the  machines  in  the  morning  for  the  election. 

3405  The  witness  looked  at  the  numbers  on  the  machines 
before  voting  began  and  afterwards,  and  made  a  record 


658  Testimony/  of  C.  R.  Dart. 

of  what  he  saw.  It  is  the  official  record  of  the  Municipal 
Pension  Fund. 

The  number  of  men  voting  on  the  machine  compared 
with  the  number  of  cards. 

Mr.  McEwen  objects  to  the  witness  reading  from  docu- 
ments produced  by  the  witness  on  the  ground  that  he  did 
not  make  them. 

3408  There  were  about  450  or  460  votes  cast  on  the  ma- 
chine; about  30  or  35  votes  failed  to  register. 

Mr.  Muldowney,  when  asked  about  this,  said  that  thej' 
did  not  pull  the  switch  back  far  enough. 

3409  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

All  three  machines  used  in  the  election  were  wrong. 

3410  The  witness  took  a  record  of  what  the  machine  showed 
in  the  morning  before  the  election  started,  read  the  fig- 
ures himself  and  made  a  record  of  them. 


Cablton  R.  Dabt: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3411  Witness  resides  in  Wilmette  and  is  bridge  engineer  for 
the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago.  He  is  familiar  with 
the  advertising  for  bids  by  the  district. 

3412  Bids  are  required  to  be  filed  within  ten  days  to  thirty 
or  possibly  forty  days  in  extreme  cases. 

The  class  of  work,  bridge  and  canal  construction  work 
in  the  mechanical  department,  contracts  run  up  to 
$500,000. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

The  law  fixes  the  time  for  advertisements.  Ten  days 
is  the  minimum  limit,  with  no  maximum  fixed. 

3413  The  largest  contracts  for  canal  work  are  for  scooping 
out  dirt  and  stone  at  so  much  per  yard. 

Bridges  are  "made  from  plans  we  prepare,  and  we  are 
not  bound  to  accept  bids,  but  may  relet  contracts." 

The  witness  cannot  state  how  long  a  time  should  be 
given  a  man  to  file  bids  on  a  voting  machine  contract. 
Has  no  knowledge  on  the  subject  and  no  judgment  upon  it. 


Testimony  of  W.  H.  Clark.  659 

3414  Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

The  witness  would  not  express  an  opinion  as  to  the 
time  i-equired  for  bidding  on  a  70-key  machine  of  which 
a  50-key  type  was  already  in  existence,  because  many  ma- 
chines increase  in  complexity  as  they  increase  in  size. 

3415  Big  contracts  have  been  let  to  parties  who  have  never 
built  a  bridge  across  the  Chicago  River  or  a  bridge  "of 
that  character." 

Re-cross  Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

The  Sanitary  District  advertisement  did  not  require 
builders  of  bridges  to  present  a  model  with  their  bids. 

3416  Complete  plans  of  bridges  are  furnished  by  the  Sani- 
tary District  to  bidders  and  they  have  to  build  accord-^ 
ing  to  such  plans. 

W.  H.  Claek  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3417  Witness  resides  at  the  Keystone  Hotel,  31st  and  State 
street.  Is  a  clerk  in  the  Board  of  Election  Commission- 
ers' office. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  I  have  procured  certified  copies  of 
advertisements  from  the  officials  at  Springfield  having 
charge  of  the  records,  and  have  asked  Mr.  Clark  to  tab- 
ulate the  results.  He  will  give  the  effect  of  the  certifi- 
cates." 

The  witness  is  asked  to  give  his  summary  of  the  certi- 
fied copies. 

Objections  made  and  sustained. 

3418  Thereupon  the  certified  copies,  seven  in  number,  are 
offered  in  evidence,  as  follows: 

3419  Exhibit  1.  Advertisement  by  the  State  Board  of  Ad- 
ministration, dated  February  7,  1912,  for  bids  for  the 
erection  of  a  hospital  building,  bids  to  be  filed  by  March 
11,  1912.  Plans  and  specifications  to  be  furnished  by  the 
State  architect. 

3420  Exhibit  2.  Advertisement  by  the  Board  of  Administra- 
tion, dated  October  21,  1911,  for  the  erection  of  a  kitchen 
and  bakery  building  at  the  St.  Charles  School  for  Boys ; 
bids  to  be  filed  by  November  20th.  State  architect  to  fur- 
nish plans  and  specifications. 


660        Advertisements  by  Board  of  Administration. 

3421  Exhibit  3.  Advertisement  by  the  Board  of  Administra- 
tion, dated  July  1,  1913,  for  bids  to  furnish  quarterly 
supplies,  such  as  agricultural  implements,  bedding,  bran, 
shorts,  butterine,  building  materials,  clothing,  dry  goods, 
groceries  and  so  forth,  for  State  charitable  institutions; 
bids  to  be  filed  by  July  14,  1913. 

3424  Exhibit  4.  Advertisement  by  the  Board  of  Adminis- 
tration, dated  January  1,  1910,  for  bids  to  furnish  mis- 
cellaneous supplies  for  same  institutions ;  bids  to  be  filed 
by  January  13,  1910. 

3426  Exhibit  5.  Advertisement  by  State  Board  of  Admin- 
istration, dated  April  8,  1910,  for  bids  to  furnish  miscel- 
laneous supplies  similar  to  the  last,  for  17  State  chari- 
table institutions ;  bids  to  be  filed  by  April  21,  1910. 

3428  Exhibit  6.  Advertisement  by  State  Board  of  Admin- 
istration, dated  July  1,  1910,  for  bids  to  furnish  miscel- 
laneous articles,  materials,  supplies,  etc.,  to  same  insti- 
tutions, bids  to  be  filed  by  July  18,  1910. 

3430  Exhibit  7.  Advertisement  by  State  Board  of  Admin- 
istration, dated  October  1,  1910,  for  bids  to  furnish  mis- 
cellaneous supplies,  materials,  etc.,  to  same  institutions, 
bids  to  be  filed  October  17,  1910. 

3433  "Mr.  McEwen.  The  supplies  advertised  for  are  such 
as  can  be  bought  in  the  market  in  a  day's  time. 

Mr.  Deneen  objects  to  the  receiving  of  the  advertise- 
ments in  evidence,  because  their  conditions  are  not  sim- 
ilar to  those  for  voting  machines.  On  the  advertisements 
offered  the  specifications  are  furnished  by  the  advertiser. 
In  the  voting  machine  matter  both  specifications  and  mod- 
els are  to  be  furnished  by  the  bidders. 

This  objection  is  not  passed  upon  by  the  Committee. 


Volume  XXX. 

Afternoon  Session. 
Monday,  April  27,  1914. 
William  M.  Spencer  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3438  Witness  resides  at  Indianapolis,  Indiana.  Witness  is 
attorney  at  law  and  a  member  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, State  of  Indiana.    Is  Election  Commissioner  for 


Testimony  of  W.  M.  Spencer.  661 

Marion  County,  and  for  the  City  of  Indianapolis,  Indi- 
ana.   Is  a  Democrat. 

3439  Has  had  experience  in  voting  macliines  and  was  con- 
nected with  a  voting  machine  company,  the  National, 
which  made  one  full-sized  voting  machine,  but  did  not  en- 
gage in  the  manufacture  of  voting  machines. 

Witness  was  president  of  the  company,  and  also  at- 
torney, and  looked  after  the  management  of  its  business. 

3440  Witness  had  also  to  do  with  the  patent  litigation  and 
understood  the  mechanical  features  of  a  voting  machine.. 

Indiana  passed  a  voting  machine  law  in  1899,  and  in 
1904  Marion  County  purchased  10  voting  machines  as  a 
trial  order.  They  were  United  States  Standard  voting 
machines. 

Testimony  relating  to  United  States  Standard  voting 
machines  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen. 
34401/2     Marion  County  purchased  130  machines  at  one  time 
and  subsequently  10  additional  machines ;  all  were  United 
States  Standard  machines. 

3441  No  Empire  voting  machines  have  been  purchased ;  they 
have  been  advertised  for  only. 

Testimony  again  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen  because 
relating  to  United  States  Standard  voting  machines,  not 
Empire. 

Mr.  McEwen  insists  upon  the  introduction  of  the  testi- 
mony on  the  ground  that  United  States  Standard  was  the 
predecessor  of  the  Empire. 

"Mr.  Deneen.    The  corporation,  not  the  machine." 

"Mr.  McEwEN.    And  the  machine,  in  its  general  prin- 
ciples." 
3443    The  objection  is  sustained  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  McEwen  offers  to  show  by  the  witness  matters  re- 
lating to  the  elections  in  Marion  County,  Indiana  by  the 
voting  machine  covering  the  cost  of  transportation,  free- 
dom from  error,  fraudulent  manipulation,  voting  of  more 
than  one  vote  to  the  minute  for  the  entire  election  day, 
and  as  high  as  100  votes  per  hour ;  that  the  contract  price 
of  the  Indiana  60-key,  7-party  voting  machine  was  $750; 
that  the  machines  have  stood  the  wear  and  tear  and  have 
remained  free  from  rust. 
3446  Mr.  Deneen  objects  to  the  investigation  of  machines 
outside  of  the  Empire  machines,  in  the  City  of  Chicago, 
so  as  to  include  other  machines  in  other  places,  under 
other  laws,  which  is  not  contemplated  by  the  resolution, 


662  Testimony  of  C.  0.  B rocker. 

and  would  broaden  the  scope  of  the  inquiry  beyond  the 
terms  of  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Deneen's  objection  is  sustained. 

Rep.  Kasserman  believes  that  the  objection  should  have 
been  overruled. 


3450  C.  Otto  Bkockeb: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

"Witness  resides  at  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin.  Is  chief 
clerk  of  the  County  Clerk's  office. 

3451  The  County  Clerk's  office  has  charge  of  the  voting  ma- 
chines used  in  the  county  outside  of  the  City  of  Milwau- 
kee. 

In  the  county  at  large,  38  voting  machines  are  used. 
"Mr.  McEwEN.    Q.    What  do  those  machines  weigh?" 
Mr.  Deneen  objects  to  the  question  until  the  machine  is 
identified. 

3453  The  objection  is  sustained  by  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

The  machines  used  in  the  county  at  large  were  30-ke5- 
machines,  7-party,  United  States  Standard  voting  ma- 
chines. The  machines  were  purchased  in  1906;  12  in 
1907,  and  the  rest  at  different  times  as  needed. 

3454  In  the  country  districts  voting  hours  are  from  8  to  6. 
' '  Mr.  McEwEN.    Q.    Do  you  know  the  comparative  cost 

of  operating  those  machines  as  compared  with  the  ballot- 
box?" 

Mr.  Deneen  objects  on  the  same  grounds  as  the  last 
objection. 

The  objection  is  sustained. 

Mr.  McEwen  makes  the  same  offer  as  with  reference 
to  the  Indianapolis  machine. 

The  objection  is  sustained  by  the  chairman. 

3455  Rep.  Kasserman  asks  that  the  record  show  the  proof 
should  be  received. 

Hebman  C.  Schultz: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3456  Witness  resides  at  Milwaukee.  Is  secretary  of  the 
Election  Commissioners  of  Milwaukee;  has  been  in  that 


Testimony  of  H.  C.  Schnltz.  663 

office  since  1894.    The  election  machines  are  in  charge  of 
a  custodian  under  the  orders  of  the  witness. 

3457  Witness  supervises  the  elections  to  see  that  they  are 
conducted  according  to  law. 

Milwaukee  got  voting  machines  in  1904  and  now  has 
142  in  use. 

The  average  election  precinct  in  Milwaukee  is  700  vot- 
ers ;  one  machine  is  used  in  each  precinct.  Some  precincts 
have  as  high  as  800  and  formerly  had  as  high  as  950. 

3458  The  highest  number  ever  voted  on  a  machine  is  850. 
The  Milwaukee  voting  machine  is  a  7-party,  40-key  ma- 
chine. 

3459  Objection  by  Mr.  Deneen  on  the  ground  that  the  ma- 
chine used  in  Milwaukee  is  the  United  States  Standard 
machine. 

Objection  sustained  by  the  chairman. 

The  machines  first  purchased  in  Milwaukee  in  1903  or 
1904,  and  the  last  purchase  w^as  made  three  years  ago. 

The  question  is  asked  whether  Milwaukee  has  had  any 
difficulty  with  clips,  wedges  or  rubber  bands  on  voting 
machines. 

Objection  is  made  by  Mr.  Deneen  and  sustained  by  the 
chairman. 

3465  "Q.  Have  you  ever  in  your  experience  with  voting 
machines  in  Milwaukee  observed  or  heard  of  the  placing 
of  any  pasters  on  the  counters  of  machines  or  any  of 
the  machines?" 

Objection  to  the  question  by  Mr.  Deneen ;  sustained  by 
the  chairman. 

Mr.  McEwen  makes  the  same  offer  to  show  by  this  wit- 
ness the  same  items  as  were  offered  in  the  case  of  wit- 
nesses Spencer  and  Brocker. 

3466  The  objection  of  Mr.  Deneen  is  sustained  by  the  chair- 
man. 

3466-7  The  question  is  asked  as  to  the  possibility  of  setting 
the  counters  of  any  voting  machine  fraudulently  so  as  to 
register  more  or  less  than  zero  to  the  disadvantage  or  ad- 
vantage of  a  particular  candidate  and  concealing  the 
fraud  by  placing  paper  zeros  over  the  counter. 

The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen  and  sus- 
tained by  the  chairman. 

Mr.  McEwen  offers  to  show  by  the  w^itness  that  such  a 
method  of  fraud  would  be  impracticable  and  would  re- 
quire too  many  people  to  conspire  and  would  be  readily 
detected. 


664  Testimony  of  C.  D.  Boyd  and  C.  A.  Kiihn. 

Objection  is  made  by  Mr.  Deneen  to  the  offer  and  sus- 
tained by  the  Chairman. 

3468  Mr.  Mitchell  asks  question  as  to  whether  the  witness 
ever  knew  of  fraud  being  established  on  voting  machines 
used  in  Milwaukee. 

3469  The  objection  is  sustained  by  the  chairman. 


Charles  D.  Boyd  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3470  Witness  resides  at  Milwaukee;  is  connected  with  the 
Wisconsin  Telephone  Company  and  from  1893  to  1910 
was  committee  clerk  of  the  common  council  and  as  such 
assisted  Mr.  Schultz  in  preparing  for  holding  elections 
in  Milwaukee. 

3471  Witness  is  acquainted  with  the  use  of  United  States 
Standard  voting  machines  in  Milwaukee. 

Witness  is  asked  whether  he  knew  of  any  frauds  com- 
mitted on  such  machines  in  Milwaukee. 

To  this  question  objection  is  made  by  Mr.  Deneen  and 
sustained  by  the  chairman. 

The  same  offer  is  made  by  Mr.  McEwen  as  made  with 
the  previous  witnesses;  the  offer  is  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Deneen  and  the  objection  sustained  by  the  chairman. 

Eep.  Kasserman  asks  that  the  record  show  that  he 
thinks  the  testimony  should  have  been  received. 

3473  Charles  A.  Kuhn: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

Resides  at  2035  Thomas  street,  Chicago;  employed  in 
the  Election  Commissioners'  office,  for  the  past  three 
years  and  three  months,  since  Judge  Owens'  election.  Is 
a  Republican. 

Witness  has  been  demonstrating  Empire  voting  ma- 
chines standing  in  the  corridor  between  the  County 
Building  and  the  City  Hall. 

3474  In  these  demonstrations  the  machine  has  been  voted 
more  than  23,000  times. 

3475  Witness  never  saw  a  man  who  could  beat  the  machine. 
Witness  has  tried  to  beat  the  machine  himself  and  never 
succeeded. 


Voting  Machine  Demonstrations.  665 

The  protective  counter  starts  running  with  the  ma- 
chine and  runs  to  a  million;  it  cannot  be  changed.  The 
public  counter  is  set  at  three  zeros  for  each  election. 

Ever  since  he  began  demonstrating  Avitness  has  made 
notes  of  the  protective  and  public  counter  record  and 
there  has  never  been  a  deviation. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

3476    Witness  has  been  demonstrating  since  December,  1913. 

3479  "Witness  had  read  an  article  in  the  newspapers  about 
errors  on  the  machine  in  the  Municipal  Pension  Fund 
election  and  had  heard  the  testimony  on  the  subject  here 
the  other  day. 

3480  Witness,  in  trying  to  beat  the  machine,  never  put  rub- 
ber bands  or  clips  on  the  face  of  the  machine,  or  paper 
zeros  on  the  back. 

3484  Witness  observed  every*  morning  to  see  that  the  pro- 
tective counter  stood  at  46,  that  the  public  counter  was 
set  at  zero  or  100  to  determine  that  there  was  no  varia- 
tion. 

Re-direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3485  The  witness  can  vote  a  split  ticket,  five  or  six  splits,  in 
thirty  seconds,  and  voters  whom  he  showed  how  to  vote 
voted  as  quickly. 

3489  The  witness  believes  he  can  vote  15  splits  in  a  minute 
on  the  machine. 

3491  On  the  day  of  the  November,  1912,  election  witness  be- 
lieves there  were  about  320  candidates. 

In  experimental  voting  the  witness  never  read  the  pub- 
lic questions  on  the  machine,  neither  did  the  other  ex- 
perimental voters;  some  of  the  voters  tried  to  read  the 

3492  public  questions.    They  did  not  get  through  in  a  minute. 

Witness  does  not  know  that  anybody  read  any  one  of 
the  seven  public  questions  appearing  on  the  voting  ma- 
chine. 

Voters  read  these  questions  before  election  day. 
3493-6  Witness  explains  the  method  of  voting  split  tickets 
for  County  Commissioners  by  pulling  down  the  keys  for 
three  Democrats  and  running  his  tinger  along  the  Re- 
publican line.  The  three  last  keys  on  the  Republican  line 
were  not  pulled  down,  but  if  the  voter  wishes  to  vote  for 
any  one  or  more  of  these  three  he  puts  up  a  correspond- 


666  Frank  Keiper  Resumes  Stand. 

ing  number  of  Republican  keys  and  then  can  vote  for  any- 
one or  more  of  the  three  he  chooses. 
3497-8    Before  election,  sample  ballots    are   given   out   and 
voters  know  where  the  candidates  are  located  on  the  ma- 
chine.   Probably  some  voters  do  not  do  this. 

Frank  Keiper,  previously  sworn,  recalled  for  further  ex- 
amination by  Mr.  McEwen : 

3501  The  same  three-wheel  counter  is  used  on  the  Empire 
machine  as  on  the  United  States  Standard  machine.  They 

3502  are  manufactured  by  the  Veeder  Meter  Company  and 
are  stock  counters. 

The  same  counters  are  used  on  the  protective,  public 
and  individual  candidate  counters. 

The  witness  is  asked  whether  the  United  States  Stand- 
ard machines  used  the  same  counters,  and  the  question  is 
objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen,  wlii«h  objection  is  sustained  by 
the  chairman. 

3504  Mr.  McEwen  makes  an  offer  to  show  the  identity  of 
the  counters  on  the  United  States  Standard  and  Empire 
machines. 

3505  The  objection  is  sustained. 

Various  other  questions  as  to  the  identity  of  parts  "of 
the  mechanism  of  the  United  States  Standard  with  the 
Empire  voting  machine  mechanical  parts  are  objected  to 
and  the  objection  is  sustained  by  the  chairman,  because 
"the  United  States  Standard  machine  is  not  concerned 
here." 

3506  An  offer  is  made  by  Mr.  McEwen  to  show  the  sim- 
ilarity or  identity  of  parts  and  the  operation  in  the  two 
machines. 

3507  Objection  is  made  by  Mr.  Deneen  and  is  sustained  by 
the  chairman. 

"Rep.  Kasserman.  Let  the  record  show  that  I  think 
this  proof  ought  to  be  received." 

Susan  L.  Jenks  : 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEiven. 

3509  Witness  resides  at  5237  Jefferson  avenue,  Chicago.  Is 
president  of  the  Illinois  Woman's  Jeffersonian  Democ- 
racy. 


Testimony  of  8.  L.  Jenks.  667 

The  witness  is  familiar  with  the  working  of  the  voting 
machine  and  received  instruction  at  the  Election  Com- 
missioners' office.  In  1912  witness  voted  on  the  machine 
in  the  31st  precinct  of  the  6th  ward. 

3510  Witness  believes  her  vote  was  registered  correctly. 
Where  witness  tried  the  voting  machine  experimentally 
and  looked  at  the  vote  it  was  registered  correctly. 

Cross-Examination  hy  Mr.  Deneen. 

3511  Witness  cannot  understand  how  the  machine  can  be 
manipulated  unless  all  the  judges  and  clerks  are  cor- 
rupt. 

3512  Witness  cannot  see  how  the  custodian  can  adjust  the 
machines  to  register  incorrectly. 


Lawrence  F.  King,  recalled  for  further  examination  bj' 
Mr.  McEwen: 

3514  Since  adjournment,  witness,  with  other  persons  from 
the  Election  Commissioners'  office,  has  made  a  tabula- 
tion from  the  tally-sheet  and  statements  of  votes  in  the 
1st,  2d,  6th,  7th,  18th,  21st,  25th,  26th,  31st  and  32d  wards ; 
the  10  voting  machine  wards. 

*'Mr.  McEwEN.    I  will  offer  this  proof  when  a  larger 
number  of  the  Commission  is  present." 


Volume  XXXI. 

Morning  Session. 
Tuesday,  April  28,  1914. 

Harry  E.  Hoff,  previously  sworn,  recalled  for  further 
examination  by  Mr.  McEwen : 

3518  Witness  is  shown  a  book  of  maps  from  the  Election 
Commissioners'  office  from  which  witness  reads  the 
boundaries  of  the  20th  and  24th  precincts  of  the  1st  ward 
as  they  were  in  November,  1912. 

3519  Witness  was  present  at  the  recount  on  the  State's  At- 
torney's office. 

There  are  seals  both  on  the  curtain-lever  and  also  on 


668  Testimony  of  H.  E.  Hoff  and  J.  S.  Burns. 

the  double  "0"  lock,  which  locks  the  compartment  con- 
trolling the  movement  of  the  counters. 

"Witness  saw  the  biggest  part  of  these  counters  when 
the  machines  were  open  for  the  recount  and  did  not  see 
any  that  had  been  tampered  with. 

3520  Mr.  McEwen  then  offers  in  evidence  eleven  sheets  of 
tabulations  of  voting  machines  referring  to  the  1st,  2d, 
5th,  7th,  18th,  21st,  25th,  26th,  31st  and  32d  wards,  com- 
prising the  voting  machine  precincts  in  the  election  of 
1912.  Also  a  recapitulation  of  the  same  purporting  to 
show  the  judges '  and  clerks '  returns  on  votes  for  State 's 
Attorney. 

3522  The  purpose  being  to  show  that  there  was  no  substan- 
tial variation  between  the  reports  made  by  the  judges 
and  the  votes  shown  by  the  recount. 

The  offer  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen  and  the  objec- 
tion sustained  by  the  chairman. 


John  S.  Burns: 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3536  "Witness  resides  at  622  Blue  Island  avenue.  Is  a  clerk 
in  the  office  of  the  Election  Commissioners.  "Witness  is 
shipping  clerk  who  shipped  out  and  routed  the  voting 
machines  in  the  election  of  1912  and  was  on  the  telephone 
on  election  day. 

3537  Curtain-lever  seals  were  on  all  the  curtain  levers  when 
the  voting  machines  were  sent  to  the  precincts.  The  seal 
was  of  a  kind  that  locks  automatically  and  could  not  be 
unlocked  or  used  as  a  seal  after  once  locking. 

3538  During  election  day  numerous  telephone  calls  were 
sent  in  from  the  judges  saying  they  could  not  use  the 
curtain-lever  seals  to  lock  the  curtain  lever,  that  it  was 
already  locked  "and  there  was  a  supply  of  them  in  the 
hands  of  most  all  of  the  machines  that  were  sent  out,  and 
then  in  the  end,  late  at  night,  they  kept  on  calling  and 
calling. ' ' 

3539  Seals  were  sent  out  at  all  hours  of  the  day  and  night. 
3541     Mr.  McEwen  offers  to  show  by  witness  King  that  in 

the  election  of  1912  there  were  about  15,000  defective  bal- 
lots cast.  Objection  to  the  offer  made  by  Gov.  Deneen 
and  sustained  by  the  chairman. 


Witnesses  Show  How  They  Voted.  669 

Lawrence  F.  King,  recalled  for  further  examination  bj' 
Mr.  Deneen: 

3542  Witness  testifies  that  William  Hamlin  and  James  Ham- 
lin appear  as  living  at  2114  Wentworth  avenue  on  the 
poll  book  of  the  24th  precinct  of  the  1st  ward  for  the  elec- 
tion of  November  5,  1912. 

Perry  Lillard,  previously  sworn,  recalled  for  further  ex- 
amination by  Mr.  McEwen: 

3543  The  witness  was  taken  to  the  voting  machine  by  Mr. 
McEwen  and  asked  to  show  how  he  voted  in  the  election 
of  November,  1912.  He  did  so,  swinging  the  straight  Re- 
publican ticket  lever  down  and  swinging  the  voting  lever. 

William  Anderson,  previously  sworn,  recalled  for  fur- 
ther examination  by  Mr.  McEwen : 

3544  Witness  shows  on  the  voting  machine  how  he  voted  at 
the  election  of  November,  1912. 

"Mr.  McEwen.  The  witness  pulled  down  Taft  and 
Sherman,  Dunne  and  Rinaker. 

"The  Witness.  I  voted  for  Taft,  Deneen  and  Rin- 
aker. ' ' 

The  witness  notices  the  mistake  he  has  made,  but  says 
he  made  no  such  mistake  on  election  day. 

"The  Chairman.     Three  minutes  on  that." 


Theodore  Thomas,  previously  sworn,  recalled  for  fur- 
ther examination  by  Mr.  McEwen : 

3547     Witness  votes  on  the  voting  machine. 

"Mr.  McEwen.  The  witness  voted  for  Taft  and  Sher- 
man by  pulling  down  the  key,  then  throwing  over  the 
voting  lever. 

"The  Chairman.    He  voted  in  one  minute." 

3549  Mr.  Lasky,  a  witness  before  examined,  states  that  when 
he  voted  on  the  voting  machine  at  the  election  he  was 
assisted  by  the  judges. 

3550-1  Mr.  Brown,  a  witness  heretofore  examined,  voted  on 
the  machine.  Intended  to  vote  the  straight  Republican 
ticket. 


I 


I 


670  Muldowney  Explains  Errors  hy  Machine. 

"Mr.  McEwEJT.  The  witness  pulls  down  the  lever  in 
front  of  the  straight  Republican  ticket  and  pulled  it  back, 
then  threw  the  voting  lever  over.  .  .  .  The  witness  made 
a  mistake.     He  should  have  put  the  lever  back. 

"Mr.  Brown.  I  hardly  know  whether  I  put  it  back 
the  other  time  or  not. ' ' 

Two  other  witnesses,  Mr.  James  LaGraza  and  E.  H. 
Ford,  cast  experimental  votes  on  the  machine;  also  Mr. 
James  Duncan.^ 

Afternoon  Session. 
Tuesday,  April  28,  1914. 

Bernard  J.  Mahony. 

Direct  Examination  hy  Mr.  McEwen. 

3558  Witness  is  an  attorney-at-law  connected  with  the 
State's  Attorney's  office.  Was  present  at  the  State's 
Attorney  recount  representing  Mr.  Hoyne. 

The  witness  is  offered  by  Mr.  McEwen  to  show  how 
many  precincts  in  the  city  of  Chicago  showed  no  varia- 
tions between  the  judges '  election  returns  and  the  recount 
taken. 

Objection  by  Mr.  Deneen  to  this  proof  is  sustained  by 
the  chairman. 


James  J.  Muldowney. 

Previously  sworn;  recalled  for  further  examination  by 
Mr.  McEwen. 
3560     Has  been  present  at  this  hearing  and  heard  the  testi- 
mony regarding  the  Pension  Fund  election. 

Witness  had  spoken  to  Mr.  McMahon,  Mr.  Wallace,  and 
Mr.  Cassidy  and  explained  to  them  why  the  errors  ap- 
peared in  the  voting  machine  at  the  Pension  Fund  elec- 
tion. 

Witness  had  said  to  them  it  was  because  the  vot- 
ing keys  were  pulled  down  and  put  up  again  before  the 
voting-lever  was  pulled  by  the  voter. 

Witness  has  since  seen  Mr.  Wallace  who  said  that  this 
was  true  and  that  Mr.  Wallace  would  come  back  and 
testify  to  that  effect. 


Testimony  of  J.  D.  Harris.  671 

3561  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

No  one  could  tell  which  of  the  345  voters  at  the  Pen- 
sion Fund  election  had  not  voted. 

The  men  who  had  failed  to  vote  must  have  left  the 
machine  supposing  that  they  had  voted.  The  machine 
would  not  show  the  defective  voting. 

Witness  does  not  know  how  many  voters  in  the  Pension 
Fund  election  failed  to  register  their  votes  on  the  ma- 
chine. 

John  D.  Habris. 

Direct  Examination  by  Mr.  McEwen. 

3566  Witness  lives  at  South  Bend,  Indiana,  and  is  a  ma- 
chinist foreman.  Witness  has  had  something  to  do  with 
the  use  of  voting  machines  in  South  Bend,  Indiana. 

Voting  machines  have  been  used  in  Indiana  two  years 
next  June  at  two  elections  and  two  primaries. 

The  machine  used  was  the  Empire  9-party,  50-candi- 
date  machine,  "a  little  smaller  than  that  machine  there." 

There  were  48  machines  used  in  the  county,  28  in  South 
Bend.  48  machines  was  the  total  number  of  machines 
used  in  the  whole  county,  28  in  South  Bend,  8  in  Misha- 
waka,  and  12  in  the  township. 

3567  Witness  has  had  full  charge  of  the  machines  as  cus- 
todian and  is  custodian  now. 

The  machines  were  used  in  the  voting  district,  no  bal- 
lot boxes  whatever. 

The  machines  were  carried  20  miles,  some  of  them,  and 
weigh  750  pounds  net.  They  weigh  half  a  ton  with  the 
case.     Three  men  handle  the  machine. 

3568  "Q.  Will  you  describe  how  these  machines  are  used 
in  the  elections  there;  that  is,  what  is  done  by  way  of 
repairing  the  machines,  how  it  is  used?" 

Question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen  on  the  ground 
that,  while  it  is  the  Empire  machine,  Illinois  is  the  only 
state  that  has  cumulative  voting,  a  restriction  for  women, 
the  Municipal  Court,  the  Sanitary  District  Trustees,  and 
so  forth. 

3569  "Mr.  McEwen.  Q.  Do  you  use  the  group  vote  in 
South  Bend,  or  did  you  use  it  on  the  machine?    A.    Yes, 


672  The  Empire  Machine  at  South  Bend. 

The  machine  has  a  lock-out  device  so  that  candidates 
can  be  locked  out  in  cities.  The  lock-out  device  is  also 
used  for  a  woman's  lock-out. 

The  machine  is  also  used  at  primaries  and  the  party 
lock-out  is  used  for  that  purpose. 

The  machine  is  sent  out  about  three  or  four  days  be- 
fore the  election  to  the  polling  place.  Before  it  is  sent 
out  the  ballot  is  put  on  the  machine  and  then  it  is  sealed 
with  two  locks,  a  padlock  and  a  lever.  The  custodian 
keeps  a  card  that  takes  in  every  operation  of  the  ma- 
chine and  all  machines  are  checked  off  to  see  that  they 
are  in  order  for  voting. 

While  in  the  polling  place  it  is  inspected  again  and  a 
record  made  on  the  custodian's  card  of  its  condition. 

After  the  election  is  over  the  machine  is  locked  and  a 
seal  put  on  it,  after  which  they  open  the  back  of  the  ma- 
chine and  take  off  the  count  from  the  rear,  the  judges 
and  clerks  of  election. 

The  straight  and  split  vote  are  taken  off  separately  and 
added;  after  that  the  machine  is  put  into  the  case  and 
taken  to  the  warehouse. 

In  Indiana  the  number  allowed  to  the  precinct  is  250 — 
number  of  voters. 

"Q.  What  is  the  highest  number  of  votes  that  you 
have  ever  known  of  being  cast  on  the  machine?" 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen  on  account  of  dif- 
ferent conditions  in  Indiana  from  those  in  Illinois. 

The  witness  is  allowed  to  answer  the  question  and 
3573-B  says:   "Our  last  election  was  540  and  some  odd,  was 
the  highest. ' ' 

The  polls  are  open  at  primary  elections  for  12  hours, 
same  for  general  elections,  beginning  at  6  in  the  morning 
and  quitting  at  6  at  night. 

The  largest  number  of  candidates  on  the  machine  was 
40  candidates  for  six  parties. 

At  South  Bend,  100  votes  were  cast  in  one  hour  the 
first  time  the  machine  was  used. 
3575     Witness  has  never  known  of  a  machine  being  tampered 
with  on  election  day  in  any  way,  shape  or  manner ;  there 
has  no  report  ever  come  to  him  to  that  effect. 
3577     The  witness  is  a  practical  mechanic. 

The  inside  parts  of  the  machine  are  made  of  brass 
and  copper  and  some  composition  metal. 

The  parts  are  treated  to  prevent  rusting  with  some- 
thing like  a  galvanizing  treatment.    Witness  never  found 


Testimony  of  J.  D.  Harris.  673 

any  rust  on  any  of  these  parts  or  any  evidence  of  deter- 
ioration. 

"Q.  Have  you  made  any  comparative  estimate  or 
comparative  examination  with  regard  to  the  cost  of  elec- 
tion by  ballot  box  and  election  by  voting  machine?  A. 
Yes,  sir." 

Question  and  answer  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Objection  is  sustained  by  the  chairman. 
3578     "Mr.  McEwen.     Well,  I  offer  to  show  by  this  witness, 
as  I  offered  with  regard  to  the  others,  that  voting  ma- 
chines saved  about  one-third  of  the  cost  of  any  election. 

"The  Chairman.  Wliy  couldn't  you  show  that  by  tue 
commissioners? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  For  the  reason  that,  in  Illinois,  be- 
cause of  the  large  election  in  1912,  we  were  compelled 
to  maintain  ballot-boxes,  and  so  we  just  went  on  with  the 
old  ballot-box  expense ;  we  couldn't  get  away  from  it. 

"Rep.  Jones.     Wouldn't  you  always  be  under  that? 

"Mr.  McEwEN.     Not  necessarily. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  the  length  of  time  that  was  allowed 
in  the  advertisement  for  bids  on  voting  machines  when 
they  were  purchased  in  South  Bend  or  in  that  county?" 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

Objection  sustained  by  the  chairman. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.     Q.     "Wliat  price  was  paid  by  South 

3580  Bend,  or  the  county,  for  those  machines?" 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen. 
"A.    $40,000." 

3581  "The  Chaieman.     He  may  answer. 

"A.  I  said  that  the  50  machines  cost  $40,000,  $800 
apiece. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  There  are  two  you  do  not  use?  A. 
Those  are  extras,  we  use  those  for  inspecting  the  elec- 
tion boards,  separate  from  the  other." 

The  voting  machines  have  not  broken  down  since  they 
were  used  in  Indiana,  nor  failed  to  work. 

3582  Cross-Examination  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

The  witness  states  that  the  machines  do  not  wear  at 
all,  nor  rust,  and  that  he  has  examined  every  part  of 
the  machine. 

Witness  does  not  know  the  number  of  parts  and  there 
are  too  many  parts  to  guess  at. 


674  Litigation  Over  South  Bend  Contract. 

Witness  was  not  on  the  board  that  purchased  the  ma- 
chines, nor  did  he  examine  machines  for  the  board.  Had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  purchase,  except  to  pay 
taxes. 

The  witness  does  not  know  what  commission  the  agent 
got  for  selling  the  machines  in  Indiana,  but  there  has  been 
litigation  in  South  Bend  by  some  companies  on  the  award 
to  the  Empire  machine.  Witness  believes  also  a  ques- 
tion as  to  the  integrity  of  the  contract. 
3584  Witness  believes  the  charge  was  that  they  paid  too 
much  for  the  machines. 

Witness  knows  of  no  other  bidders  for  the  Indiana 
contract  except  the  Winslow  people,  also  the  Triumph 
and  the  International. 

Mr.  Deneen  asks  what  lawyers  started  the  litigation 
regarding  the  contract  with  the  Empire  Company. 

Question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  McEwen  and  the  chair- 
man rules  that  the  question  may  be  answered. 

3590  "Mr.  Deneen.     Q.    What  are  their  names! 

3591  "The  Witness.     I  can  only  give  you  the  names  of  the 
lawyer  for  the  Empire  people ;  I  know  him  personally. 

"Sen.  Landee.  The  question  was,  who  brought  the 
suit?  A.  The  suit  was  brought  by  the  Winslow  com- 
pany and  was  instituted  along  about  last  January,  or,  I 
mean,  a  year  ago  last  January. ' ' 

The  Empire  Machine  Company's  lawyer  was  F.  H. 
Wurzer. 

Witness  does  not  know  the  names  of  the  lawyers  for 
the  Winslow  Company  and  does  not  think  they  were 
local  lawyers. 

3592  The  suit  was  brought  in  the  Circuit  Court,  the  clerk  of 
which  is  named  Frank  B.  Krutchoff. 

The  contract  was  made  on  behalf  of  the  county  by  the 
County  Commissioners  of  St.  Joseph  county. 
3594     The  only  time  witness  saw  Mr.  Winslow  was  when  he 
was  in  Indiana  during  the  voting  machine  matter. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  defraud  the  machine  by  put- 
ting on  a  rubber  band,  but  it  was  not  successful. 
3596     The  witness  has  heard  of  clips  which  may  be  used  for 
holding  two  voting  keys  together. 

The  witness  has  not  heard  of  adjusting,  the  counters 
of  the  machine  so  that  it  will  not  record  any  votes  until 
8  or  10  votes  are  cast,  and  is  sure  that  that  cannot  be  done. 

In  grouping  the  custodian  might  make  a  mistake  so  that 
the  machine  would  not  record  matters  correctly ;  it  would 


Frauds  by  Custodian.  675 

not  record  at  all,  the  voter  could  not  vote  on  it  if  it  was 
not  set  right. 

The  machine  cannot  be  set  so  that  it  would  require  the 
casting  of  several  votes  before  one  would  register  for  any 
particular  candidate,  because  of  the  mechanism  of  the 
machine. 

The  witness  could  do  this  because  he  has  the  keys  and 
is  custodian. 

3598  The  machine  is  always  set  to  zero  and  is  examined  by 
the  election  boai'd. 

If  the  custodian  had  charge  of  the  machine  he  could 
set  it  to  any  number  he  wanted  to,  but  it  would  show  on 
the  counters  and  that  could  not  be  sealed,  because  the 
counters  all  have  to  show  the  zero  mark. 

In  Indiana  they  have  250  electors  to  a  precinct  ana 
the  largest  elector  had  40  candidates  and  6  parties. 

The  Indiana  machine  will  accommodate  9  parties.  In 
the  Indiana  machine,  independent  candidates  can  be  voted 
on  the  slide  rolls. 

3599  When  the  voting  machine  is  closed  by  the  judges  of 
election,  a  seal  is  placed  on  it  and  a  number  is  placed  on 
the  seal.  The  seal  remains  on  the  machine  until  it  is 
opened  either  for  a  contest  or  for  another  election,  and 
nobody  tampers  with  it.  The  same  seal  and  the  same 
number  remains  on  the  machine  until  the  seal  is  taken 
off  and  destroyed. 

The  purpose  of  putting  a  seal  on  the  machine  is  to 
show  that  nobody  has  opened  the  machine  from  the  time 
they  stopped  voting  until  it  is  delivered  to  the  custo- 
dian. 

In  Indiana  the  machine  is  not  permitted  to  be  opened 
for  at  least  30  days  after  the  election  unless  by  order  of 
the  judge. 

3600  When  the  machine  is  set  by  the  custodian  a  card  record 
is  kept  with  the  seal  number  on  it  and  the  record  is  also 
made  of  this  when  the  machine  goes  out. 

When  the  machines  have  been  fixed  they  are  stored  in 
the  basement  under  lock  and  key  and  nobody  is  permitted 
to  go  in  to  them. 

3601  No  one,  except  the  custodian,  (the  witness)  has  any- 
thing to  do  with  fixing  the  machines.  The  night  watch- 
man or  night  custodian  has  nothing  to  do  with  that  and 
has  no  key  to  the  machine.  The  keys  are  locked  in  the 
auditor 's  office  in  the  court  house  in  }i  vault  and  the  audi- 


676  Further  on  the  South  Bend  Litigation. 

tor,  deputy  auditor  and  the  witness  knows  the  combin- 
ation of  the  vault. 
3602  When  the  machines  are  in  the  precinct,  away  from 
the  basement  of  the  court  house  the  witness  has  no  means 
of  guarding  the  machines  against  tampering.  He  goes 
to  the  polls  personally  the  day  before  election  and  ex- 
amines the  machines  to  see  that  they  are  all  right;  after 
that  they  are  in  the  hands  of  the  election  board. 
3604  The  placing  of  a  false  zero  over  the  figures  on  the  coun- 
ter might  make  a  change  in  the  machine  and  the  custo- 
dian might  do  it  if  he  were  so  inclined. 

Such  a  fraud  if  it  made  a  substantial  difference  would 
be  checked  up  by  comparison  with  the  public  counter  and 
the  protective  counter  as  to  how  many  votes  were  cast. 

If  these  zeroes  were  placed  on  the  machine  by  the  cus- 
todian there  would  be  no  way  for  the  judges  and  clerks 
to  discover  it  unless  they  can  see  the  figures  revolving  in 
the  back.  The  judges  and  clerks  are  not  supposed  to  look 
into  the  machines  while  voting. 

Mr.  Deneen,  who  has  been  absent  from  the  room,  here 
returns  and  asks  the  witness : 

3609  "Q.  I  want  to  refresh  your  recollection  about  that 
suit  down  in  South  Bend.  Do  you  know  a  man  named 
J.  J.  Mackerlain!     A.    I  do  not. 

"Q.  Is  he  not  president  or  associated  with  the  South 
Bend  Engraving  Company!  A.  I  know  of  a  firm  by 
that  name  there;  whether  that  is  the  same  gentleman,  I 
couldn't  say. 

"Q.  Wasn't  the  suit  against  the  Empire  Company  in- 
stituted by  J.  J.  Mackerlain  of  the  South  Bend  Engrav- 
ing Company?  A.  That  is  the  name,  but  whether  it  is 
the  same  gentleman,  I  could  not  tell  you." 

3610  Witness  cannot  say  whether  the  attorneys  for  Mr. 
Mackerlain  were  Mr.  Hubble,  and  Mclnerney  &  Mclner- 
ney.  A  change  of  venue  was  taken  in  the  case  to  LaPorte 
county. 

(After  a  short  recess  Mr.  Deneen  resumed  the  cross- 
examination  of  the  witness.) 
3612  "Mr.  Deneen.  Q.  Now,  Mr.  Harris,  to  refresh  your 
recollection  about  this  suit.  The  suit  was  started  at  South 
Bend  by  Mr.  J.  J.  Mackerlain ;  Mr.  Hubble,  Mclnerney  & 
Mclnerney  represented  Mr.  Mackerlain,  and  it  was 
started  in  behalf  of  the  Triumph  Company,  rather  than 
the  Winslow." 


Empire  Machine  Loses  41  Votes.  677 

The  witness  cannot  say  as  to  that. 

3614  "Mr.  Deneen.  I  am  asking  if  one  of  the  objections  to 
the  machines  raised  by  Mr.  Mackerlain  on  behalf  of  the 
Triumph  Company  was  not  that  the  machine  did  not  com- 
ply with  the  law  of  Indiana  in  that  the  elector  could  not 
vote  his  ticket  within  a  minute?  A.  I  don't  remember 
hearing  anything  about  that.' 

"Q.  Wasn't  the  second  contention  that  the  machine 
was  not  large  enough  to  enable  the  elector  to  vote  for 
each  of  the  presidential  electors?  A.  No,  sir,  I  didn't 
hear  it." 

Mr.  Mackerlain,  to  witness'  knowledge,  did  not  exper- 
iment on  the  machine  and  try  to  write  in  the  names 
on  the  blank  spaces  and  tore  the  paper  to  pieces. 

Witness  does  not  remember  whether  it  was  contended 
that  rubber  bands  could  be  used  to  prevent  an  accurate 
vote  or  that  clips  could  be  used  for  the  same  purpose. 
Witness  did  not  hear  that  the  machines  could  be  made  to 
register  inaccurately  by  putting  paper  zeros  on  the  back 
of  the  machine  to  hide  the  metal  zeros. 

3615  "Q.  Wasn't  one  of  the  contentions  made  that  you 
had  an  invisible  ballot  on  the  face  of  the  machine  and  the 
elector  couldn't  tell  for  whom  he  was  voting?  A.  No, 
sir. 

"Q.  You  were  custodian  of  those  machines  in  Novem- 
ber, 1912,  were  you  not?    A.    I  was. 

"  Q.  I  will  refresh  your  recollection  here  and  call  your 
attention  to  the  vote  on  the  3d  ward  of  South  Bend. 
Didn't  the  machine  there  show  98  more  votes  than  had 
been  voted?    A.     No 

"The  machine  in  that  precinct,  when  the  vote  was  tal- 
lied at  night,  taken  off  the  back  part  of  the  machine  onto 
the  paper,  it  showed  that  there  was  so  many  votes  less 
than  what  the  counters  indicated,  but  that  was  owing  to 
the  voter  going  into  the  machine  and  pulling  down  the 
pointer  and  pushing  it  up  again  and  then  throwing  his 
lever  over  where  he  lost  his  vote  in  doing  that. 

3616  "Q.  How  many  votes  lost  in  doing  that?  A.  Well, 
there  was  about  41. 

"Q.    And  not  98?    A.    And  not  98. 

"Q.  Was  there  any  method  of  identifying  any  one  of 
those  41  who  made  this  mistake?    A.    No,  sir. 

"The  machine  wouldn't  show  it;  there  was  no  means 
of  identifying  the  man  who  did  the  wrong  voting;  unless 


678  Testimony  of  J.  D.  Harris. 

the  voter  who  made  the  mistake  in  voting  was  told  of  it, 
he  would  not  know  it  at  all. 

3618  ' '  Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  Mr.  Harris,  do  you  know  the  amount 
of  money  that  was  saved  by  the  use  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine in  the  first  year  of  its  existence  in  South  Bend?" 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

"Mr.  McEwEN.  It  is  in  line  with  something  that  has 
been  ruled  out  before,  but  I  want  to  make  an  offer  to 
prove  there  was  a  saving  to  that  county  of  $11,000  on 
the  first  two  elections." 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Deneen. 

' '  Mr.  McEwEK.  Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  Triumph 
Company  brought  that  suit  over  in  South  Bend,  or 
whether  a  taxpayer  brought  it  ? " 

The  suit  was  brought  in  the  name  of  J.  J.  Mackerlain 
of  the  South  Bend  Engraving  Company. 

3619  "Mr.  McEwEN.  Q.  You  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
handling  of  this  lawsuit?  A.  No,  sir,  I  was  called  as  a 
witness. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  whether  those  machines  have  been 
paid  for?  A.  I  believe  there  has  been  two  payments. 
That  lawsuit  was  to  restrain  the  county  from  making 
the  first  payment. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  how  many  payments  those  ma- 
chines were  to  be  paid  for  in?  A.  Four,  $10,000  each 
payment. ' ' 

They  were  annual  payments. 

"Q.  You  were  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company  at  South  Bend,  just  as  you 
were  here  ?    A.    Yes,  sir. ' ' 


Appendix.  679 

APPENDIX 


Official  Reports  of  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine 
Commissioners  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

VI  (EXHIBIT  3/0). 


The  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners. 

Report  to  the  Governor.     December  30th,  1915. 

Report. 

December  30th,  1905. 

To  His  Excellency,  Hon.  Edward  C.  Stokes,  State  Capitol, 
Trenton,  N.  J.: 

Sir:  The  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commis- 
sioners herewith  submits  its  fourth  annual  report. 

Since  the  last  report  of  this  Commission,  dated  De- 
cember 31st,  1904,  the  personnel  of  this  board  has  been 
changed  by  the  death  of  our  esteemed  associate,  Edward 
L.  Phillips,  of  Chatham,  N.  J.,  on  January  14th,  1905. 

Feeling  that  the  record  of  this  Commission  would  be 
incomplete  without  some  words  expressive  of  the  warm 
esteem  in  which  Edward  L.  Phillips  was  held  by  his  asso- 
ciates, we  desire  to  accompany  this  note  of  his  death  with 
a  brief  extract  from  the  memorial  adopted  by  the  com- 
mission : 

"Early  in  our  intercourse  as  fellow  members  our  ac- 
quaintance became  close  friendship,  and  his  manly  char- 
acter and  attractive  personality  increasingly  endeared 
him  to  us.  His  scientific  attainments,  his  sound  judg- 
ment and  his  high  standards,  made  him  an  able  counselor, 
and  we  gladly  recognize  that  what  measure  of  success 
attended  our  efforts  was,  in  greatest  part,  due  to  his  en- 
ergetic guidance.  His  death  removes  from  this  board 
one  who  served  his  state  well  and  faithfully  in  every 
measure  of  responsibility  cast  upon  him,  and  from  us, 
his  associates,  a  friend  whose  kindliness  of  spirit  leaves 
to  us  a  cherished  memory." 

The  vacancy  occurring  in  this  board  was  filled  by  your 
excellency,  for  the  unexpired  term,  by  the  appointment 


680  Appendix. 

in  succession  of  our  late  associate  in  the  capacity  of  me- 
chanical expert,  in  compliance  with  the  law  requiring 
one  member  of  this  commission  to  be  a  mechanical  ex- 
pert, of  Franklin  Phillips,  M.  E.,  of  Newark,  N.  J.  Cap- 
tain Phillips  entered  upon  the  discharge  of  his  duties 
as  a  member  of  the  commission  on  March  10th,  1905. 

Since  the  report  of  this  commission,  dated  December 
31st,  1904,  the  legislature  has  enacted  two  laws  relating 
to  voting  machines;  Chapter  118  of  the  Laws,  session 
of  1905,  entitled  "Supplement  to  an  act  entitled  'An  act 
to  regulate  elections,'  approved  April  4th,  1898,"  which, 
by  section  two,  makes  wilful  tampering  with  or  injuring 
a  voting  machine  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by  a  fine  of 
$500  or  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison  for  the  term 
of  three  years,  or  both.  Chapter  205  of  the  Laws,  ses- 
sion of  1902,  made  the  commission  of  the  acts  specified 
a  felony,  and  imposed  a  penalty,  upon  conviction,  of  im- 
prisonment in  the  state  prison  at  hard  labor  for  not  less 
than  three  nor  more  than  ten  years. 

Chapter  215  of  the  Laws,  session  of  1905,  approved 
April  28th,  1905,  entitled  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  pur- 
chase of  voting  machines  and  to  regulate  the  use  of  the 
same  at  elections,"  was  based  upon  a  bill  framed  by  a 
commission  appointed  by  the  legislature,  pursuant  to  a 
concurrent  resolution,  consisting  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  the  Attorney  General,  and  the  chairman  of  this 
commission,  for  the  purpose  of  so  amending  the  prior  law, 
Chapter  205  of  the  Laws,  session  of  1902,  above  referred 
to,  as  to  remedy  the  defects  to  which  attention  was  called 
in  the  last  annual  report  of  this  commission.  Section 
35  of  this  enactment  provides,  after  specifying  the  of- 
fences constituting  tampering  with  a  voting  machine,  as 
penalty  therefor,  a  fine  not  exceeding  $100,  and,  in  de- 
fault thereof,  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  a  period 
not  exceeding  ninety  days. 

Section  2  of  this  last  enactment  makes  provision  for  the 
appointment  of  a  commission  to  consist  of  three  persons, 
to  be  known  as  the  "State  Board  of  Voting  Machine 
Commissioners,"  and  continues  the  present  commission  in 
office  until  the  expiration  of  the  term  for  which  they  were 
originally  appointed. 

Section  3  provides  for  the  organization  of  the  commis- 
sion, and  pursuant  to  its  terms  the  members  of  this  com- 
mission, upon  the  appointment  of  Franklin  Phillips  to 
fill  the  existing  vacancy,  reorganized  on  March  10th,  1905, 


Appendix.  681 

by  electing  Joseph  A.  Broliel  as  chairman,  Franklin  Phil- 
lips as  treasurer  and  Seward  Davis  as  secretary. 

Sections  4  and  5  provide  for  the  examination  and  ap- 
proval of  voting  machines  by  this  board.  The  commis- 
sion has  re-adopted  certain  rules  governing  the  submis- 
sion and  examination  of  voting  machines  submitted  to 
it,  and  presents  herewith  a  copy  of  its  requirements,  which 
is  annexed  to  this  report  and  marked  Exhibit  1. 

Section  6  prescribes  the  requirements  with  which  any 
machine  must  comply  in  order  to  secure  the  approval  of 
this  board. 

Pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  sections  4,  5  and  6  of  this 
act,  application  has  been  made  to  this  commission  for  the 
examination  of  three  voting  machines,  which  were  exam- 
ined by  the  board,  as  follows:  The  Dial  Voting  Ma- 
chine, presented  by  The  Dial  Voting  Machine  Company, 
of  Lyndhurst,  N.  J.,  on  June  27th,  1905;  the  Triumph 
Voting  Machine,  presented  by  the  Triumph  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company,  of  Pittsfield,  Mass.,  on  September  26th, 
1905,  and  the  International  Voting  Machine,  presented 
by  The  International  Voting  Machine  Company,  of  Chi- 
cago, 111.,  on  October  3d,  1905. 

These  machines  were  duly  and  thoroughly  examined 
by  the  commission,  but  in  each  instance,  at  the  request  of 
the  exhibitors,  these  examinations  were  not  formally 
completed,  as  the  respective  companies  presenting  them 
each  requested  an  adjournment  to  permit  it  to  make  cer- 
tain changes  necessary  in  their  machines  to  adapt  them 
to  the  provisions  and  requirements  of  the  law  with  which, 
as  presented  to  the  commission,  they  failed  to  comply. 
Up  to  the  present  time  none  of  these  companies  has  re- 
submitted its  machine  or  presented  any  further  applica- 
tion for  its  examination. 

By  section  7  of  Chapter  215,  above  referred  to,  pro- 
vision is  made  for  the  expenditure,  with  the  consent  of 
the  Governor,  of  such  sums  as  may  be  appropriated  for 
the  purchase  of  voting  machines  by  the  commission.  The 
legislature,  by  Chapter  264  of  the  Laws,  session  of  1905, 
entitled  "An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  support 
of  the  state  government,"  etc.,  at  paragraph  93,  appro- 
priated the  sum  of  $50,000  for  the  purchase  of  voting 
machines,  a  certified  copy  of  which  act  was  received  by 
this  board  from  the  Secretary  of  State  on  July  5th,  1905. 

In  accordance  with  the  judgment  of  this  commission, 
concurred  in  by  your  Excellency,  it  was  decided  that  it 


682  Appendix. 

would  be  expedient  to  endeavor  to  procure  the  additional 
voting  machines  provided  for  in  season  for  use  at  the 
general  election  to  be  held  in  this  year,  provided  delivery 
could  be  made  in  season  therefor  without  depriving  the 
state  of  the  best  prices  otherwise  procurable.  In  con- 
formity with  the  provisions  of  Chapter  215,  this  commis- 
sion duly  advertised,  as  provided  by  section  8  of  Chapter 
205,  for  a  period  of  twenty  days,  its  intention  to  purchase 
voting  machines,  inviting  proposals  therefor.  The  pub- 
lication of  this  advertisement  was  begun  July  15th,  1905, 
in  there  papers,  as  follows:  The  Jersey  City  Evening 
Journal,  The  Newark  Sunday  Call  and  The  Trenton  State 
Gazette,  copy  of  which  said  proposal  is  annexed  to  this 
report  and  marked  Exhibit  2.  By  its  terms,  sealed  pro- 
posals were  to  be  submitted  on  August  15th,  1905,  and 
publicly  opened  at  the  capitol  on  that  date.  Copy  of  this 
proposal  was  sent  to  every  manufacturer  of  voting  ma- 
chines knowTi  to  this  commission  on  July  24th,  1905. 

Two  proposals  were  received  and  opened  on  August 
15th,  1905;  one  from  The  Internationad  "\''oting  Machine 
Compaiiy,  of  Chicago,  111.,  and  the  other  from  the  United 
States  Standard  Voting  Machine  Company,  of  Rochester, 
N.  Y.  The  proposal  of  The  International  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company  offered  to  furnish  100  International  Vot- 
ing Machines,  including  delivery  and  instructions,  for  the 
sum  of  $50,000,  and  quoted  as  its  price  per  machine  for 
any  less  number  $600  and  agreed  to  make  delivery  on 
October  1st,  1906. 

As  the  machine  proposed  to  be  furnished  by  The  Inter- 
national Voting  Machine  Company  was  not  of  a  kind, 
style  or  pattern  which  had  been  approved  by  the  commis- 
sion, in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  this  state,  the  pro- 
posal of  that  company  was  rejected. 

The  proposal  of  the  United  States  Standard  Voting 
Machine  Company  offered  to  furnish  eighty  United  States 
Standard  Voting  Machines  at  the  net  price  of  $600  each, 
f.  0.  b.  cars  at  Jamestown,  N.  Y.,  and  agreed  to  have  the 
same  ready  for  shipment  on  or  before  the  15th  day  of 
September,  1905. 

As  machines  of  the  same  type  and  capacity  proposed 
to  be  furnished  by  the  United  States  Standard  Voting 
Machine  Company  had  been  sold  the  state  by  this  com- 
pany in  1903  and  1904,  at  the  price  of  $500  each,  includ- 
ing delivery  at  the  points  to  be  designated  throughout  the 
state,  and  as,  in  1904,  this  company  had  included  in  its 


Appendix.  683 

price  the  work  of  instruction,  the  proposal  of  the  United 
States  Standard  Voting  Machine  Company  was  rejected. 
Both  proponents  having  been  duly  notified  of  the  rejec- 
tion of  their  bids,  the  United  States  Standard  Voting 
Machine  Company  tendei'ed  an  amended  bid  on  August 
23d,  1905,  offering  to  furnish  the  state  of  New  Jersey 
either  with  100  voting  machines,  as  specified  in  its  pro- 
posal, for  the  sum  of  $50,000,  or  to  furnish  ninety  ma- 
chines for  $45,000,  such  prices  being  f.  o.  b.  cars  at  James- 
town, and  agreeing  to  provide  at  its  expense,  one  instruc- 
tor, and  to  furnish  all  printed  supplies  for  said  machines, 
and  instruction  models. 

The  commission  having  required  from  the  officers  of 
the  United  States  Standard  Voting  Machine  Company  af- 
fidavits setting  forth  copies  of  all  contracts  entered  into 
by  it  since  January  1, 1904,  found  upon  inspection  of  these 
affidavits  and  contracts  that  this  company  had  established 
uniform  prices  for  its  machines,  as  follows: 

$600  for  seven  party  machines  having  thirty  office 
columns ; 

$650  for  seven  party  machines  having  forty  office 
columns ; 

$700  for  seven  party  machines  having  fifty  office  col- 
umns, and  $750  for  seven  party  machines  having  sixty 
office  columns,  and  that  it  had  not  sold  any  machines  of 
the  capacity  desired  by  the  board,  i.  e.,  having  facilities 
for  voting  for  thirty  candidates  of  each  of  seven  parties, 
and  for  or  against  fourteen  questions  or  amendments, 
for  a  less  price  than  $600  per  machine,  and  that  such 
sales  had  been  made  uniformly  without  payment  of  de- 
livery charges  or  furnishing  of  instructions  since  its  last 
sale  to  the  state  of  New  Jersey  of  machines  in  1904,  but 
that  it  had  sold  large  numbers  of  machines  since  that 
time  at  the  prices  above  given. 

The  commission  having  decided  to  recommend  to  your 
Excellency  the  purchase  of  ninety  United  States  Stand- 
ard Voting  Machines,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of 
the  proposal  of  that  company,  as  amended,  for  the  sum 
of  $45,000,  and  such  recommendation  having  met  with 
your  approval,  a  contract  was  prepared  accordingly,  pur- 
suant to  the  terms  of  which  the  United  States  Standard 
Voting  Machine  Company  agreed  to  furnish  ninety  ma- 
chines, together  with  printed  supplies  for  the  same,  and 
to  instruct  those  to  be  employed  by  the  commission  as 
instructors.     This  contract,  having  been  approved  as  to 


684  Appendix. 

form  by  the  Attorney  General,  was  duly  executed  by  the 
company  and  this  commission  on  the  15th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1905,  and  was  ratified  by  your  Excellency  and 
filed  in  the  office  of  the  State  Comptroller,  together  with 
a  bond  to  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  in  the  sum  of  $45,000, 
executed  by  the  United  States  Standard  Voting  Machine 
Company  as  principal,  and  the  United  States  Fidelity  and 
Guaranty  Company  of  Baltimore,  Maryland,  as  surety, 
pursuant  to  section  8  of  Chapter  215  aforesaid. 

By  the  terms  of  this  contract  it  was  agreed  that  de- 
livery would  be  made  of  these  machines  upon  five  days' 
notice,  and,  such  notice  having  been  duly  given,  shipment 
was  made  of  these  machines  in  three  carload  lots,  one  to 
Jersey  City,  one  to  Newark,  and  one  to  Trenton.  The 
machines  having  been  duly  inspected  by  the  commission 
and  found  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  contract  were  ap- 
proved by  the  commission  and  accepted,  and  upon  receipt 
of  the  designations  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  upon 
October  3d,  1905,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
section  9  of  Chapter  215  aforesaid,  of  the  election  districts 
wherein  such  machines  should  be  placed,  delivery  was 
made  to  the  governing  bodies  of  the  municipalities  in 
which  these  election  districts  were  situated  to  which  the 
Secretary  of  State  had  assigned  the  said  machines,  and  re- 
ceipts taken  from  the  clerks  of  the  said  municipalities  for 
said  machines  and  supplies. 

The  machines  furnished  under  this  contract  embodied 
a  number  of  features  of  improvement,  which  were  ap- 
proved by  the  commission,  over  the  type  heretofore  fur- 
nished. The  principal  features  of  improvement  were  that 
voting  on  split  presidential  electoral  ballots  by  means  of 
metallic  tubes  had  been  done  away  with,  provision  being 
made  in  the  new  machine  for  the  extension  of  the  paper 
roll  and  access  thereto  by  means  of  a  slide,  as  in  the  case 
of  other  independent  nominations,  permitting  the  use  of 
pasters  or  the  writing  of  names  upon  the  independent  roll, 
such  change  doing  away  with  one  extra  lock  and  key  nec- 
essary where  access  to  the  section  of  the  machine  contain- 
ing the  voting  tubes  is  required.  Glass  doors  are  also 
provided  at  the  back  of  the  machine,  permitting  examin- 
ation of  the  counters  without  giving  access  thereto,  upon 
the  unlocking  of  the  machine.  In  the  matter  of  re-setting, 
provision  had  been  made  whereby  this  can  be  accomplished 
in  about  one-quarter  of  the  time  necessary  with  machines 
before  purchased,  and  the  method  of  attachment  and  ad- 


Appendix.  685 

justment  of  the  legs  of  the  machine  had  been  much  sim- 
plified; and  in  various  mechanical  details  modifications 
had  been  adopted,  rendering  the  machine  stronger  and 
more  durable. 

Pursuant  to  section  9  of  Chapter  215  this  commission 
provided  for  the  setting  up  of  the  machines  in  the  elec- 
tion districts  selected  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  gave 
all  such  instructions  in  their  use  as  in  its  judgment  was 
necessary.  To  carry  out  the  work  of  instruction  in  the 
limited  time  at  the  disposal  of  the  commission,  six  in- 
structors were  employed,  whose  duties  consisted  in: 

First.  The  instruction  of  the  municipal  clerk,  charged 
with  the  care  and  custody  of  the  machine  and  with  its 
proper  setting  for  election  in  his  duties. 

Second.  The  instruction  of  election  boards,  to  be 
charged  upon  election  day  with  the  operation  of  the  ma- 
chine, in  the  method  of  operation  and  the  taking  of  the 
tally  therefrom. 

Third.  The  instruction  of  the  public  by  demonstra- 
tions of  the  machines,  and  by  provision  for  the  distribu- 
tion of  handbills  and  circulars  of  instruction,  by  the  ex- 
hibition of  posters,  and  in  supervising  the  public  exhibi- 
tion of  the  machines  by  the  election  boards  on  the  last 
registration  day  preceding  election,  in  conformity  with 
section  34  of  Chapter  215  aforesaid.  The  instruction  of 
the  public  was  further  accomplished  by  the  exhibition  in 
public  places  of  the  models  furnished  with  each  voting 
machine. 

This  work  of  instruction  was  carried  on  until  the  clerk 
of  each  municipality  was  thoroughly  versed  in  his  duties, 
and  had  executed  a  certificate  that  he  had  been  instructed 
in  the  us6  and  care  of  the  machine,  and  that  he  under- 
stood same.  Similarly,  the  instruction  of  members  of 
the  election  board  of  each  election  district  where  a  ma- 
chine was  to  be  used  was  carried  on  until  their  duties  were 
thoroughly  understood  and  they  had  executed  certificates 
that  they  had  been  instructed  and  understood  the  opera- 
tion of  the  machine. 

The  commission,  having  completed  its  work  of  instruc- 
tion upon  the  ninety  new  machines  purchased  this  year, 
and  upon  such  of  the  old  machines  as  had  been  trans- 
ferred to  new  election  districts,  pursuant  to  the  direction 
of  the  Secretary  of  State,  wrote  to  all  the  municipal 
clerks  throughout  the  state,  having  charge  of  voting  ma- 
chines, asking  if  they  required  any  further  instruction 


686  Appendix. 

or  assistance  in  the  setting  of  their  machines  for  the  elec- 
tion to  be  held  November  7th,  1905.  The  replies  received 
from  ninety-five  per  cent,  of  the  clerks  who  had  had 
charge  of  machines  at  preceding  elections  were  to  the  ef- 
fect that  no  further  instruction  or  assistance  was  needed. 
Wherever  a  request  was  received  for  additional  instruc- 
tion the  commission  undertook  the  work,  and  sent  an  in- 
spector to  see  that  the  machines  were  properly  set  for 
election. 

In  addition  to  the  work  performed  by  the  commission 
as  above  outlined,  it  endeavored  to  secure  the  co-opera- 
tion of  the  officials  having  charge  of  voting  machines 
throughout  the  state  in  the  instruction  of  the  public  by 
calling  their  attention,  by  letter  addressed  to  each,  to 
Chapter  215,  above  referred  to,  immediately  upon  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act,  particularly  calling  attention  to  section 
34  of  its  provisions,  requiring  the  exhibition  of  machines 
at  the  last  registration  day  preceding  election,  and  the 
giving  of  instruction  to  all  voters  who  should  apply  for 
same.  The  commission  also  caused  to  be  distributed  the 
emblems  of  the  several  political  parties  which  had  adopted 
same,  in  accordance  with  section  13  of  the  said  act.  The 
board  also  prepared,  under  the  supervision  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  forms  of  statement  of  canvass  for  the  re- 
turns from  voting  machines,  and  attended  to  their  distri- 
bution, as  well  as  to  the  distribution  of  the  supplies  of 
unofficial  tally  sheets,  election  programs,  books  of  infonna- 
tion,  notices  to  election  officers  to  come  for  instruction, 
custodian's  memoranda  cards  for  instructing  election 
officers,  certificates  of  instruction  given  election  officers, 
sheets  of  instructions  to  election  officers,  folders  "how  to 
vote,"  tags  for  voting  machine  keys,  receipts  for  instruc- 
tion models  loaned,  tags  for  instruction  models  loaned, 
sheets  of  custodian's  instructions  for  examining  and  pre- 
paring machine  for  election,  certificates  of  inspection  of 
machine,  envelopes  for  delivery  of  voting  machine  keys 
to  election  officers,  envelopes  for  return  of  voting  machine 
keys  to  city  clerk,  election  officer's  receipts  for  voting 
machine  keys  delivered  to  him,  envelopes  for  delivery  of 
lead  seals  to  election  officers,  lead  seals,  one  before  and 
one  after  election;  election  officer's  certificates  that 
counters  are  all  set  at  000  on  election  morning,  simple 
diagrams  of  ballots,  wall  posters  showing  how  to  vote, 
and  sample  sheets  of  ballot  labels. 

Section  37  of  Chapter  215,  aforesaid,  imposed  upon  this 


Appendix.  687 

board  the  additional  duty  of  having  all  voting  machines 
inspected  annually  before  the  general  election  of  each 
year.  Pursuant  to  this  provision  the  361  machines  which 
had  been  purchased  by  the  state  were  inspected  prior  to 
the  election  held  November  7th,  1905,  and  certificates  of 
such  inspection  were  made  by  the  commission's  inspec- 
tors. These  certificates  showed  that  with  but  few  excep- 
tions the  machines  were  in  first-class  condition.  The 
machines  that  were  reported  as  in  any  way  lacking  in 
equipment  or  defective  were  only  those  that  had  been  in- 
jured maliciously  or  through  careless  handling  or  im- 
proper care.  In  each  case,  the  necessary  repairs  to  place 
the  machine  in  good  order  were  attended  to  by  the  United 
States  Standard  Voting  Machine  Company  under  the 
guaranties  contained  in  the  contract  of  sale,  which  im- 
pose upon  that  company  the  duty  of  keeping  these  ma- 
chines in  repair.  Where  the  injury  resulted  through 
fault  of  those  charged  with  the  care  and  custody  of  the 
machine,  these  repairs  were  made  at  the  expense  of  those 
officials,  in  conformity  with  section  11  of  Chapter  215 
aforesaid. 

So  far  as  this  commission  has  learned,  every  machine 
worked  properly  upon  election  day,  November  7th,  1905, 
throughout  the  entire  state.  The  machine  is  not  to  blame 
for  the  acts  of  clerks  or  election  officers  who  do  their 
work  improperly.  Wherever  the  machines  were  cor- 
rectly set  they  correctly  recorded  the  vote.  The  com- 
mission caused  an  inspection  to  be  made  of  the  machines  in 
the  three  election  districts  where  complaints  were  made 
that  the  voting  machines  there  used  did  not  operate  prop- 
erly at  the  election  held  November  7th,  1905.  An  examin- 
ation of  these  machines  at  the  expiration  of  the  thirty 
days'  period,  during  which  the  machines  are  by  sections 
25  and  28  of  Chapter  215  required  to  be  kept  locked,  and 
in  every  instance  the  machines  have  been  found  to  be  in 
perfect  order  and  condition,  and  that  they  have  operated 
properly  and  exactly  as  set,  and  that  the  difficulties  ex- 
perienced were  due  to  improper  setting. 

The  machines  in  Monmouth  county — one  at  Red  Bank 
and  one  at  Shrewsbury — were  not  properly  arranged 
for  the  offices  where,  it  is  stated,  there  was  a  surplus  of 
votes.  Endorsing  bars  were  placed  on  the  machines  to 
connect  the  counters  for  a  candidate  for  Senator,  who 
was  nominated  by  two  parties;  also  for  a  candidate  for 
sheriff,  who  was  nominated  by  three  parties.     This  would 


688  Appendix. 

not  have  caused  any  trouble  if  the  election  officers  had 
followed  the  printed  instructions  and  taken  the  record 
of  but  one  of  the  counters,  as  each  counter,  whenever 
connected  by  an  endorsing  bar,  shows  the  total  votes  cast 
for  that  candidate;  but  one  counter  should  be  reported, 
as  the  others  are  only  duplicates.  There  was  no  sur- 
plus of  votes;  the  surplus  is  in  the  returns,  which  were 
not  taken  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  given. 

In  Morris  county,  the  machine  at  Madison  had  an  en- 
dorsing bar  connecting  counters  having  different  names, 
with  the  result  that  each  candidate  received  the  vote  of 
both.  The  clerk  who  set  this  machine  was  given  instruc- 
tion the  day  before  election,  and  his  machines  were 
properly  set  for  him,  but  were  subsequently  exhibited 
and  voted  upon,  and  when  re-set  were  improperly  re- 
set. 

In  Burlington  county,  the  machine  used  at  Moorestown 
had  one  counter,  which  was  not  set  at  zero. 

In  Hudson  county,  the  failure  to  deliver  ballots  for  the 
machines  in  due  season  occasioned  some  delay  in  the  set- 
ting of  the  machines. 

As  stated,  in  none  of  these  instances  did  the  machines 
fail  to  properly  record  the  votes  cast  upon  them.  The 
accuracy  and  reliability  of  voting  by  machine  was  made 
evident  by  the  examination  of  these  machines,  not  only  in 
voting  districts  where  no  complaint  was  made,  but  par- 
ticularly in  those  where  the  vote  for  candidates  was  ques- 
tioned. In  the  latter  ease  the  contrast  has  been  made  so 
sharp  between  voting  by  paper  ballots,  with  its  numerous 
errors,  and  voting  by  machine,  with  complete  freedom 
therefrom,  where  the  machine  was  set  correctly,  as  to 
point  the  way  without  question  to  a  more  complete  use 
of  machines  for  voting  purposes.  The  difficulties  en- 
countered have  largely  arisen  through  the  system  of  dis- 
tribution of  machines  adopted.  The  present  method  of 
distributing  the  machines  involves  the  maintenance  of  two 
systems  of  voting  in  many  municipalities,  which  results 
not  only  in  an  unnecessarily  large  expense,  but  also  in  a 
vast  amount  of  extra  labor  on  the  part  of  the  local  of- 
ficials. The  commission  therefore  recommends  that 
future  purchases  of  voting  machines  should  be  assigned 
so  as  to  complete  the  equipment  of  cities,  towns  or  munici- 
palities, as  the  best  results  are  attained  where  but  one 
system  of  voting  is  in  use.  Where  voting  by  machine 
is  the  only  system  in  use,  the  local  officials  will  have 


Appendix.  689 

more  time  to  devote  to  the  care  and  preparation  of  the 
machines  and  to  acquainting  themselves  with  the  neces- 
sary requirements.  There  will  be  no  excuse  then  for  a 
repetition  of  such  errors  as  occurred  in  the  recent  elec- 
tion, on  account  of  the  ignorance  of  certain  officials  as  to 
the  directions  for  setting  the  machines  and  the  conse- 
quent unfavorable  comments  on  the  machine  from  those 
who  attributed  the  trouble  to  a  defect  in  its  construction 
or  operation.  By  grouping  the  machines  so  as  to  com- 
plete the  equipment  of  any  given  locality,  a  more  thorough 
and  systematic  education  of  the  public  may  also  be  ac- 
complished and  any  dissatisfaction  with  the  machines 
eliminated,  since  we  find  that  it  is  due,  wherever  it  exists, 
solely  to  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  voters  of 
the  merits  and  accuracy  of  the  machine. 

Inasmuch  as  the  board  is  required  by  section  37  to  have 
all  voting  machines  inspected  before  the  general  election 
in  each  year,  the  commission  recommends  that  some  ap- 
propriation be  made  available  for  this  purpose  before 
November  first  of  each  year.  To  carry  out  the  duties 
imposed  by  this  section  upon  the  commission,  it  has  been 
necessary  for  the  commission  to  employ  inspectors,  and 
as  there  was  no  fund  available  from  which  they  could 
be  paid,  the  commission  has  had  personally  to  advance 
these  necessary  funds. 

Section  12  of  Chapter  215  dispenses  with  the  printing 
of  ballots,  except  the  official  ballots  used  upon  the  ma- 
chines. This  should  effect  a  material  saving  where  there 
is  a  complete  equipment  of  county,  city  or  other  munici- 
pality with  voting  machines.  A  further  and  material 
saving  may  also  be  effected  by  an  amendment  to  the  law, 
providing  that  in  election  districts  where  voting  ma- 
chines are  used  there  need  be  but  three  election  officers, 
since  but  three  are  needed  where  machines  are  used. 

The  commission  would  also  recommend  that  some  pro- 
vision be  made  by  which  a  voter  might  at  times,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  period  immediately  preceding  election,  have 
access  to  the  voting  machine  in  the  district  where  he  re- 
sides for  the  purpose  of  learning  how  to  vote  thereupon. 
This  might  be  accomplished  by  the  exhibition  of  the  ma- 
chine in  some  public  place,  such  as  the  city  or  town  hall, 
fire-engine  house,  or  similar  public  place,  where  the  ma- 
chine could  be  left  without  danger  of  malicious  injury. 
In  this  way,  opportunity  would  be  afforded  for  the  citi- 
zens to  become  conversant  with  the  method  of  voting 


690  Appendix. 

upon  the  machine,  and  every  person  so  educated  would 
strengthen  the  public  opinion  favoring  the  complete  in- 
stallation of  voting  machines  in  the  voting  districts 
throughout  the  state,  in  conformity  with  the  policy  of 
state  equipment,  advocated  by  Governor  Murphy  in  his 
inaugural  address  of  1902,  and  his  subsequent  messages 
to  the  legislatures  of  1903,  1904  and  1905. 

In  view  of  the  recounts  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  election 
of  November  7th,  1905,  had  in  many  places  throughout 
the  state,  the  editorial  comment  of  the  Newark  News  of 
November  20th,  1905,  seems  to  the  commission  worthy  of 
quotation : 

"Whenever  and  wherever  a  contest  has  been  close,  not 
only  in  this  state,  but  in  all  others,  the  defeated  candidate 
almost  invariably  demands  a  recount,  on  the  ground  that 
the  ballots  cast  were  not  counted  and  returned  as  they 
should  be.  There  is  hardly  any  variation  to  this  pro- 
gram, and  there  is  abundant  justification  for  it.  Down 
in  Monmouth  county,  where  there  are  fifty-eight  election 
districts,  the  county  election  board  found  something 
more  than  a  dozen  of  the  returns  correct.  All  the  rest 
were  imperfect  and  incorrect  in  some  way  or  other.  Pos- 
sibly only  one  or  two  votes  were  incorrectly  returned 
in  each  district,  but  in  the  aggregate  this  may  be  enough 
to  turn  the  election  *  *  *  and  the  court  is  asked  to  re- 
count the  whole  number  of  ballots  cast  in  the  county  to 
determine  this  very  point.  *  *  *  In  point  of  fact  nobody 
has  any  confidence  in  the  election  officers  or  their  returns 
in  a  close  vote;  nothing  but  a  recount  by  the  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  is  at  all  satisfactory.  Only  when  the 
majorities  are  so  overwhelming  that  mistakes  can  hardly 
affect  the  results  are  ordinary  election  returns  accepted 
as  substantially  correct.  One  of  two  things  seems  im- 
perative. Either  select  only  skilled  mathematicians  and 
expert  accountants  for  election  officers,  or  have  voting 
machines  that  cannot  and  will-not  falsify  returns,  and  put 
them  in  the  hands  of  competent,  honest  men,  who  will 
start  them  right.  In  one  New  Jersey  district  a  machine 
refused  to  work  for  two  hours.  In  a  whole  division  in 
Philadelphia,  according  to  The  Press  of  that  city,  'a  hu- 
man machine  refused  to  allow  a  single  vote  to  be  cast  for 
ten  hours  on  election  day.'  In  Red  Bank,  one  candidate 
who  had  no  opposition,  had  more  votes  credited  to  him 
than  were  cast,  but  this  was  caused  by  lack  of  knowledge 
of  the  way  to  gear  the  machine.     In  New  York,  as  al- 


Appendix.  691 

ready  shown,  more  votes  were  returned  than  were  cast 
in  a  dozen  different  districts,  and  this  was  done  crimin- 
ally. The  Red  Bank  machine  announced  the  error  at 
once ;  it  took  a  recount  to  find  the  mistake  purposely  made 
in  New  York. 

' '  The  voting  machine  is  and  has  for  several  years  been 
used  in  Buffalo,  Rochester,  Syracuse,  Utica,  and  in  several 
other  large  cities  in  New  York;  it  is  also  used  at  elections 
in  towns,  townships,  and  village  districts  and  the  longer 
it  is  used  the  better  it  is  liked.  It  is  honest,  it  is  ac- 
curate; there  are  no  recounts  where  it  is  geared  right  to 
begin  with,  for  the  voters  know  that  its  verdict  is  not  to 
be  impeached.  It  may  be  tampered  with  by  ignorant  or 
unscrupulous  officers,  "but  even  then  it  cannot  be  made  to 
lie.  It  will  tell,  the  moment  it  is  opened,  if  the  voters' 
intentions  have  been  in  any  way  vitiated." 
Respectfully  submitted, 

Jos.  A.  Brohel, 
Franklin  Phillips, 
Seward  Davis, 
The  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners. 


EXHIBIT  1. 


The  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  ap- 
pointed pursuant  to  Chapter  205  of  the  Laws  of  1902  of  the 
state  of  New  Jersey,  entitled  "An  act  to  authorize  the 
use  of  voting  machines  at  elections  hereafter  to  be  held  in 
this  state,  or  in  any  subdivision  thereof,  and  providing 
that  the  votes  cast  at  any  such  election  may  be  registered 
or  recorded  and  counted,  and  the  result  of  such  elections 
ascertained  by  such  machines,"  and  Cliapter  215  of  the 
Laws  of  1905  of  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  entitled  "An 
act  to  provide  for  the  purchase  of  voting  machines,  and 
to  regulate  the  use  of  the  same  at  elections,"  being  duly 
constituted  and  organized,  has  adopted  the  following  as 
its  procedure  in  the  examination  of  machines  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  it: 

I.  Application  for  the  examination  of  a  machine  must 
be  in  writing  addressed  to  the  secretary. 

II.  Such  application  must  be  accompanied  by  two 
sets  of  the  following  papers : 


692  Appendix. 

(1)  Photographs  showing  the  kind,  pattern  or  style 
of  the  machine  to  be  exhibited,  suitably  mounted  on  linen 
for  binding. 

(2)  A  description  of  the  construction  of  the  machine 
to  be  exhibited. 

(3)  Drawings  illustrating  the  construction  of  such 
machine. 

(4)  A  description  of  the  method  of  operation  of  such 
machine. 

(5)  A  signed  statement  setting  forth  on  separate 
pages : 

(a)  The  advantages  claimed  for  the  mechanical  con- 
struction adopted. 

(b)  The  advantages  attending  the  use  of  the  machine 
exhibited,  especially  with  reference  to  its  accuracy,  ef- 
ficiency and  capacity  to  register  the  will  of  the  voters. 

(c)  A  list  of  places  where,  and  dates  when,  said  ma- 
chines have  beeU)  officially  used. 

(d)  A  list  of  patents  under  which  the  machine  is  built, 
accompanied  by  copies  of  such  patents. 

(e)  A  list  of  state  commissions  by  which  the  machine 
has  been  examined,  with  a  copy  of  the  report  of  each 
commission. 

(f)  Any  further  information  necessary  to  an  under- 
standing of  the  machine. 

III.  The  application  must  be  accompanied  by  a  certi- 
fied check  drawn  to  the  order  of  "Franklin  Phillips, 
Treasurer,"  for  the  sum  of  four  hundred  and  fifty  dol- 
lars ($450)  for  each  machine  submitted. 

IV.  Upon  receipt  of  the  application  the  secretary  will 
give  reasonable  notice  of  the  date  appointed  by  the  board 
for  the  examination  of  applicant's  machine. 

V.  Machines  to  be  submitted  shall  be  erected  in  the 
State  House,  at  Trenton,  N.  J.,  in  complete  working  order, 
by  9  o'clock  A.  M.,  of  the  day  appointed  for  examina- 
tion. 

VI.  Machines  may  be  consigned  to  o^vners,  in  care  of 
the  Custodian  of  the  Capitol,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  who  will 
designate  the  room  in  which  they  shall  be  erected  and 
afford  proper  facilities  for  their  unboxing  and  erection. 

VII.  Each  exhibitor  shall  attend  in  person,  or  have 
present  a  representative  authorized  to  operate  and  ex- 
plain his  machine  and  to  furnish  such  further  information 
concerning  the  exhibit  as  may  be  desired. 

VIII.  Tlie  exhibitor  shall  pay  all  costs  of  transpor- 


Appendix.  693 

tation,  erection,  exhibition  and  operation  and  be  respon- 
sible for  the  care  of  his  property. 

IX.  Pursuant  to  section  6  of  Cliapter  215  of  the  Laws 
of  1905,  the  commission  has  adjudged  that  it  is  necessary 
that  any  voting  machine  shall  be  so  constructed  as  to  pro- 
vide facilities  for  voting  for  the  candidates  of  at  least 
seven  different  parties  or  organizations,  and  for  and 
against  at  least  fourteen  different  questions  or  amend- 
ments. 

X.  Further  information  may  be  obtained  from  the 
secretary  of  the  commission,  to  whom  all  communications 
should  be  addressed  in  writing,  at  Upper  Montclair,  N.  J. 
By  order  of 

The  State  Boaed  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners. 

Seward  Davis, 

Secretary. 


EXHIBIT  II. 


Proposals  for  Voting  Machines. 

The  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners 
hereby  gives  notice  that  pursuant  to  and  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  and  conditions  of  an  act  of  the  legis- 
lature of  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  entitled  "An  act  to  pro- 
vide for  the  purchase  of  voting  machines  and  to  regulate 
the  use  of  the  same  at  elections,"  the  same  being  Chap- 
ter 215  of  the  Laws,  session  of  1905,  approved  April  28th, 
1905,  and  a  further  act  entitled  "An  act  making  appro- 
priations for  the  support  of  the  state  government  and  for 
several  public  purposes  for  the  tiscal  year  ending  Octo- 
ber 31st,  1906,"  the  same  being  Cliapter  264  of  the  Laws, 
session  of  1905,  approved  June  26th,  1905,  it  has  the  power 
and  authority  to  expend  with  the  consent  of  the  Governor, 
the  sum  of  $50,000,  appropriated  for  that  purpose  in  the 
purchase  of  voting  machines  of  a  kind,  style  or  pattern 
which  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  approved  by  said 
commissioners,  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  state, 
and  intends  to  purchase  such  number  of  voting  mt;  chines 
as  the  appropriation  for  that  purpose  will  permit,  and 
invites  proposals  therefor  in  accordance  with  the  follow- 
ing specifications: 


694  Appendix. 

Proposals  should  state — 

1st.  The  kind,  style  or  pattern  of  machine  proposed 
to  be  furnished. 

2d.  The  capacity  of  the  machine,  which  must  provide 
facilities  for  voting  for  the  candidates  of  at  least  seven 
diflferent  parties  or  organizations,  and  for  not  less  than 
thirty  candidates  of  each  party  or  organization,  and  for 
and  against  at  least  fourteen  different  questions  or  amend- 
ments. 

3d.  What  provision  the  proposer  intends  to  make  for 
the  purpose  of  instructing  the  officers  charged  by  law 
with  the  care  and  custody  of  voting  machines,  the  elec- 
tion boards  charged  by  law  with  their  operation  and  the 
public  so  as  to  enable  voters  to  vote  either  a  straight  or 
a  split  ticket  within  the  statutory  time  allowed. 

4th.  The  number  of  machines  proposed  to  be  furnished, 
including  delivery  and  instruction,  as  above  specified, 
for  the  said  sum  of  $50,000. 

5th.  The  price  for  machine  for  any  less  number,  in- 
cluding delivery  and  instruction,  as  above  specified. 

6th.  What  provision  the  proposer  makes  for  suitably 
encasing  the  machine. 

7th.  The  date  when  delivery  can  be  made,  said  delivery 
to  be  made  at  such  places  within  the  state  of  New  Jer- 
sej"  as  may  be  directed  by  the  commissioners. 

The  attention  of  those  intending  to  submit  proposals 
is  invited  to  the  provisions  and  requirements  of  Cliapter 
215  of  the  Laws  of  1905,  above  referred  to,  for  further 
particulars. 

Each  proposal  must  be  accompanied  by  a  certified  check 
for  $500  to  the  order  of  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Ma- 
chine Commissioners  as  an  evidence  of  good  faith,  to  be 
returned  upon  announcement  of  decision  of  commission. 

The  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners  re- 
serves the  right  to  reject  any  or  all  proposals. 

The  proposals  hereby  invited  should  be  addressed  to 
the  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  in 
care  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  and  must 
be  received  on  or  before  August  15th,  1905,  and  'r.il[  be 
opened  publicly  at  the  State  House,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  at  noon 
on  Tuesday,  August  15th,  1905. 

Jos.  A.  Brohel, 
Franklin  Phillips, 
Seward  Davis, 
The  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners. 


Appendix.  695 

STATE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 
DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE. 


I,  David  S.  Crater,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a 
true  copy  of  Report  to  the  Governor  of  the  State  Board 
of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  as  the  same  is  taken 
from  and  compared  with  the  original  now  remaining  on 
file  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  affixed  my  Official  Seal,  at  Trenton,  this  Twenty- eighth 
day  of  June,  A.  D.  1913. 

(Signed)  David  S.  Crater, 

(Seal)  Secretary  of  State. 


REPORT. 


Hon.  Edward  C.  Stokes,  State  Capitol,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

Dear  Sir:  In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Chap- 
ter 215,  of  the  laws  of  the  session  of  1905,  entitled  "An 
act  to  provide  for  the  purchase  of  voting  machines,  and 
regulating  the  use  of  the  same  at  elections,"  the  State 
Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners  herewith  sub- 
mits the  annual  report  of  its  work  therein  provided  for. 

In  the  report  of  the  commissioners,  dated  December 
30th,  1905,  it  was  recommended  that  some  appropriation 
be  made  available  before  November  first  of  each  year  to 
enable  this  commission  to  comply  with  the  requirements 
of  section  37  of  said  act,  that  all  voting  machines  be 
inspected  by  it  before  the  general  election  in  each  year. 
The  legislature,  at  its  session  of  1906,  pursuant  to  this 
recommendation,  appropriated  the  sum  of  three  thousand 
dollars  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  November  1st,  1906;  and 
the  further  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars  for  the  year  end- 
ing November  1st,  1907,  for  the  proper  discharge  of  the 
duties  imposed  upon  this  board. 

Prior  to  the  general  election  of  1906  the  commission 
caused  an  inspection  to  be  made  of  all  voting  machines 
which  had  been  purchased  by  the  state,  to  the  number 


696  Appendix. 

of  361,  employing  for  this  purpose  as  inspector  Charles 
0.  Fuller,  of  Trenton,  New  Jersey.  Mr.  Fuller  has  served 
the  commission  as  instructor  and  inspector  for  the  past 
four  years.  He  is  a  skilled  mechanic,  and  entirely  famil- 
iar with  the  voting  machines  in  use  in  this  state,  and  has 
done  his  work  conscientiously  and  thoroughly.  In  ex- 
amining the  machines  they  were  uncased  and  erected, 
every  part  being  examined,  and  each  machine  operated 
by  voting  upon  it  some  fifty  times,  and  tested  in  every 
way.  His  written  report  upon  each  machine  showed  this 
commission  its  exact  state;  if  in  anywise  out  of  order  or 
defective,  due  to  rough  treatment  or  malicious  injuries, 
or  if  short  in  any  part  of  its  equipment,  his  report  speci- 
fied the  particular  in  which  such  defect  or  shortage  ex- 
isted. If  the  injury  were  one  traceable  to  any  inherent 
defect  in  the  machine,  the  manufacturer  was  notified  and 
called  upon  to  make  the  necessary  repairs  at  its  expense, 
as  provided  by  the  terms  of  the  contract  of  purchase.  If 
the  injury  were  one  due  to  the  improper  handling  or 
care,  the  municipal  clerk  or  other  officials  charged  with 
the  custody  of  the  machines  was  notified  to  have  such 
repairs  made  at  his  own  expense.  The  machines  v.'ere 
found,  with  but  few  exceptions,  to  be  in  perfect  condi- 
tion, although  in  very  many  instances  the  equipment  sup- 
plied with  the  machine,  consisting  of  the  working  model, 
the  lantern,  endorsing  bars,  question  pointers,  shields, 
locks,  and  keys  were  reported  missing.  Upon  notification 
to  the  clerks  these  missing  parts  were  in  nearly  every  in- 
stance located;  otherwise  the  defect  was  supplied  by  pro- 
curing duplicates  from  the  manufacturer.  Every  defect 
was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  manufacturers  but 
the  only  ones  directly  chargeable  to  them  were  those 
due  to  the  swelling  of  the  wooden  roller  upon  which  the 
paper  is  carried  to  the  ballots  for  independent  nomina- 
tions. Tlie  swelling  of  the  paper  roll  is  due  to  atmos- 
pheric moisture,  and  was  remedied  without  difficulty  by 
our  inspector.  Such  machines  as  were  reported  upon  first 
inspection  to  be  lacking  in  equipment,  or  otherwise,  were 
again  inspected  and  certified  after  having  been  put  in  per- 
fect condition.  This  work  was  all  completed  befoie  the 
general  election  of  1906. 

In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  section  9  of  Chap- 
ter 215  aforesaid,  the  Secretary  of  State,  on  or  about  the 
first  of  October,  notified  the  commission  of  certain  chan2:es 
in  designations  of  voting  machines  theretofore  made  by 


Appendix.  697 

him.  A  number  of  machines  were  transferred  by  this 
designation  to  new  districts.  The  commission,  as  req  uired 
by  the  said  section,  attended  to  the  transfers  of  such  ma- 
chines, and  provided  for  their  setting  up  in  the  new  elec- 
tion districts  selected  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  gave 
such  instructions  for  their  use  as  in  their  judgment  was 
necessary.  Such  instruction  was  given  to  the  municipal 
clerks,  borough  or  township  clerks,  as  the  case  might  be, 
and  to  the  election  board  to  be  charged  with  the  operation 
of  the  machines  on  election  day.  Similar  instruction  was 
also  given  to  all  newly  elected  clerks  and  election  boards. 

In  the  discharge  of  its  duty,  and  for  the  purpose' of 
setting  the  machines,  the  commission  from  time  to  time 
employed  the  services  of  four  instructors.  The  work  of 
instruction  in  each  instance  was  carried  out  upon  the  lines 
detailed  in  prior  reports  of  the  commission,  the  clerks 
executing  certificates  that  they  had  been  instructed,  and 
understood  their  duties  in  relation  to  the  machine;  and 
the  election  boards  similarly  certifying  that  they  had  been 
instructed,  and  likewise  understood  their  respective 
duties. 

A  month  prior  to  the  date  of  the  general  election  of 
1906  the  commission  issued  a  circular  letter  to  all  munici- 
pal and  other  clerks  charged  with  the  duty  of  setting  the 
voting  machines  for  election,  and  asking  whether  they 
required  any  further  instruction  in  their  duty,  whether 
they  desired  assistance  in  setting  their  machines  for  elec- 
tion, and  whether  in  their  opinions  the  election  boards 
who  would  have  charge  of  these  machines  upon  election 
day  required  any  additional  instructions  in  their  duties. 
In  every  instance  where  reply  was  received  asking  for 
further  instruction,  or  assistance,  the  commission  caused 
such  instruction  and  assistance  to  be  given.  In  a  large 
majority  of  cases  the  clerks  replied  that  no  further  in- 
struction was  necessary. 

The  commission  also  communicated  with  the  county 
clerks,  asking  them  to  advise  the  commission  as  promptly 
as  possible  after  the  filing  of  certificates  of  nominations, 
in  what  election  district  where  machines  were  to  be  used 
there  were  endorsed  candidates  for  the  offices  to  which 
two  or  more  nominees  were  to  be  elected,  that  is,  plural 
offices  in  which  groups  of  candidates  were  to  be  elected, 
such  as  assemblymen,  and  in  which  districts  more  than 
seven  parties  had  candidates  in  nomination,  and  in  which 
districts  there  were  more  than  thirty  offices  to  be  voted 


698  Appendix. 

upon.  As  soon  as  the  commission  received  replies  to  these 
letters  of  inquiry,  showing  where  endorsed  candidates 
were  to  be  voted  for  in  groups,  the  commission  sent  its  in- 
structor to  set  the  machines  in  those  places,  as  under  these 
conditions  it  became  necessary  to  use  what  are  termed 
"endorsing  bars."  It  was  deemed  desirable  to  supervise 
the  work  of  setting  the  machines  by  the  municipal  olerks 
wherever  endorsing  bars  were  needed,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  at  the  last  general  election,  wherever  complaint  had 
arisen,  it  had  been  traceable  to  the  improper  setting  of  the 
machine  due  to  misunderstanding  of  the  purpose  of  these 
bars.  To  obviate  the  chance  of  misunderstanding,  the 
commission  caused  to  be  distributed  to  every  clerk  having 
thei  care  of  a  machine  a  special  pamphlet  of  instruction 
relating  to  endorsing  bars,  cautioning  them  that  they  were 
ony  to  be  used  when  the  candidates  of  one  party  for  a 
plural  office,  i.  e.,  one  in  which  a  group  of  two  or  more 
candidates  were  to  be  elected,  were  also  the  nominees  of 
another  party,  or  independently  endorsed.  The  commis- 
sion also  provided  and  furnished  to  the  municipal  clerks 
for  distribution  to  the  election  boards,  an  illustrated  pam- 
phlet directing  how  the  count  should  be  taken  from  the 
machines  where  endorsing  bars  were  used,  and  particu- 
larly cautioning  them  in  turn  that  where  two  sets  of 
counters  of  any  candidates  were  connected  by  an  endors- 
ing bar,  each  set  registered  the  total  votes  cast  for  the 
endorsed  candidate,  and  that  the  counters  therefore  dup- 
licated the  vote,  and  that  one  counter  alone  should  be  re- 
turned as  the  vote  for  that  candidate,  pointing  out  to 
them  that  the  endorsing  bar  mechanically  added  on  each 
counter  the  vote  cast  for  the  endorsed  candidate  on  either. 
Despite  the  precautions  thus  taken,  it  was  found  after 
election  in  several  instances  that  election  boards  had  can- 
vassed the  returns  by  adding  both  counters  of  an  endorsed 
candidate,  thus  showing  in  their  returns  of  the  total  vote 
cast  that  there  were  a  number  of  ballots  in  excess  of  the 
total  number  of  voters,  the  surplus  consisting  of  the  dup- 
licate returns.  It  was  also  found  that  the  municipal 
clerks  had  used  endorsing  bars  in  some  instances  where 
they  were  not  intended  to  be  used,  and  should  not  have 
been  used — that  is,  where  the  endorsed  candidate  was  not 
one  of  a  group  and  where  the  candidate  was  to  be  elected 
to  a  single  office.  The  endorsing  bars  in  such  cases  were 
superfluous,  but  their  use  merely  resulted  in  adding  to- 
gether the  total  votes  cast  for  the  candidate.     Under  the 


Appendix.  699 

instruction  given  to  the  election  boards  but  one  return 
sliould  have  been  made  accoi-dingly,  the  duplication  of 
returns  being  disregarded.  Nevertheless,  several  election 
boards  failed  in  their  duty  in  this  matter,  either  through 
misapprehension  of  their  plain  instructions,  or  for  other 
reasons.  Particular  prominence  was  given  to  the  case  of 
the  Fourth  ward  of  the  city  of  Rahway,  and  of  the  bor- 
ough of  Holly  Beach.  In  the  former  case  the  matter 
came  before  the  State  Board  of  Canvassers,  and,  as  your 
Excellency  is  aware,  was  explained  to  them,  and  it  was 
demonstrated  to  their  satisfaction  by  exhibition  of  the  ma- 
chine used,  to  be  a  surplus  of  the  returns  due  to  the  im- 
proper canvass  of  the  vote  by  the  election  board  for  the 
Congressmen  in  that  district,  constituting  an  obvious  er- 
roi;.  In  the  case  of  Holly  Beach  borough  application  was 
made  to  the  court  to  have  the  count  properly  returned, 
but  the  application  was  dismissed  by  the  court  before 
hearing  on  tlie  writ. 

In  the  county  of  Hudson,  the  commission  was  not  in- 
formed until  a  few  days  before  the  election  as  to  how  many 
candidates  would  be  in  nomination;  and  it  then  appeared 
that  in  ten  of  the  election  districts  in  that  county  there 
would  l)e  more  than  thirty  candidates  of  some  parties  in 
nomination  for  as  many  offices.  That  is,  from  thirty-one  to 
thirty-five  offices  were  to  be  filled  in  some  of  these  districts. 
As  the  capacity  of  the  machine  is  limited  to  thirty  candi- 
dates for  an  office  of  any  given  party,  the  commission 
asked  the  consent  of  your  Excellency  to  the  expenditure 
of  a  portion  of  its  appropriation  for  larger  machines,  if 
this  could  be  accomplished.  Arrangements  having  been 
made  with  the  manufacturer,  the  U.  S.  Standard  Voting 
Machine  Company,  for  the  exclaange  of  ten  thirty-candi- 
date macliines  for  an  equal  nmnber  of  machines  of  forty - 
candidate  capacity,  with  the  consent  of  your  Excellency 
and  the  approval  of  the  Attorney  General,  such  exchange 
was  made  upon  the  payment  by  the  state  of  the  difference 
in  price,  of  fifty  dollars  each,  for  ten  of  such  machines. 
These  machines  having  been  delivered  prior  to  election 
day,  were  inspected  by  the  commissioners,  approved  and 
accepted  and  distributed  to  those  districts  where 
needed  and  were  used  upon  election  day.  In 
Hudson  county,  Burlington  county  and  in  Cape 
May  county,  the  commission  was  further  notified 
shortly  prior  to  the  election  that  more  than  seven 
sets  of  candidates  were  in  nomination  for  some  offices; 


700  Appendix. 

but  as  these  independent  nominations  in  no  instance  con- 
stituted complete  tickets,  the  capacity  of  the  machine 
was  sufficient  to  permit  the  placing  of  the  candidates 
thusi  independently  nominated  upon  the  same  rows  with 
candidates  of  other  parties  which  also  had  complete 
tickets  in  nomination,  the  machine  being  adapted  to  admit 
of  such  an  arrangement.  The  opinion  of  the  Attorney 
General  was  asked  and  given  upon  the  objection  being 
raised  that  such  method  or  arrangement  did  not  comply 
with  the  law  upon  the  ground  that  candidates  independ- 
ently in  nominations  constituted  parties,  and  were  entitled 
to  separate  party  rows;  but  the  proposed  method  of  set- 
ting the  machine  was  held  by  the  Attorney  General  to  be  a 
proper  one,  such  independent  nominations  not  constitut- 
ing separate  parties  in  the  contemplation  of  the  statute. 

The  commission  was  called  upon  by  nearly  all  the  city 
and  municipal  clerks  in  Hudson  county  to  assist  in  set- 
ting their  machines,  except  in  the  cities  of  Jersey  City 
and  Bayonne,  where  there  are  regularly  appointed  cus- 
todians who  are  men  qualified  to  set  the  machines  and 
understand  the  use  of  endorsing  bars.  As  tickets  were 
not  distributed  in  Hudson  countj%  as  was  the  case  in  the 
preceding  year,  until  the  night  before  election,  and  in  some 
instances  were  not  received  at  the  polling  places  until 
long  after  midnight,  the  commission's  instructors  and 
inspectors  were  greatly  handicapped  in  the  work  of  set- 
ting the  machines,  and  although  the  work  was  accom- 
plished as  speedily  as  was  possible,  in  view  of  the  late  de- 
livery of  the  tickets,  in  some  instances  the  machines  were 
not  ready  until  the  time  for  opening  the  polls.  The  com- 
mission had  this  same  experience  in  Hudson  county  in 
1905,  with  the  result  then  that  the  machines  in  some  dis- 
tricts were  not  ready  at  the  opening  of  the  polls;  they 
believe  that  the  matter  should  be  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  proper  authorities,  to  the  end  that  the  law  may 
be  complied  with,  and  tickets  printed  and  delivered  at  the 
polling  places  as  prescribed  by  the  election  law,  in  season 
to  enable  the  ballots  to  be  placed  in  the  machines  and  the 
machines  properly  set  before  election,  and  thus  avoid  the 
confusion  inevitably  resulting  from  such  delay. 

The  commission  noted  with  regret  the  wide  publicity 
given  in  the.  press  to  every  instance  in  which  a  failure 
of  a  voting  machine  is  alleged  to  have  occurred,  and  has 
caused  an  examination  to  be  made  of  every  reported  fail- 
ure.    It  has  found  as  a  result  that  in  no  instance  had  any 


Appendix.  701 

machine  itself  been  at  fault,  and  that  in  many  instances 
there  had  been  absolutely  no  foundation  for  the  reports 
which  have  appeared  in  the  press,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
town  of  Kearny.  The  machines  were  properly  set,  were 
operated  properly  and  the  returns  were  absolutely  correct. 
Widespread  charges  have  appeared  of  errors  and  mis- 
takes due  to  the  failure  of  the  machine  to  operate  properly. 
In  one  single  instance  has  there  been  any  foundation  for 
these  accusations.  In  the  case  of  the  machine  at  the 
Borough  of  Secaucus,  an  endorsing  bar  was  improperly 
placed  upon  the  machine,  and,  during  the  course  of  the 
voting,  as  it  waSl  not  properly  attached,  it  worked  loose 
and  came  off;  but  even  this  defect  cannot  be  properly 
chargeable  to  the  machine,  but  to  the  improper  setting 
of  the  endorsing  bar  upon  it,  due  to  the  hurry  and  confus- 
ion occasioned  by  the  delayed  delivery  of  the  ballots  in 
Hudson  county. 

It  is  the  belief  of  the  commission  that  under  the  plan 
of  distribution  required  by  the  statute,  by  which  machines 
are  distributed  prejudice  has  been  aroused  against  the 
machine  in  certain  localities  where  the  voters  have  felt 
that  the  location  of  a  voting  machine  was  an  attempt  to 
compel  them  to  use  a  method  of  voting  which  they  did 
not  understand,  which  they  did  not  desire,  and  which 
they  would  not  accordingly  attempt  to  learn.  The  charge 
is  made  and  reiterated  in  many  districts  where  this  view 
obtains  that  the  purpose  in  locating  a  machine  in  such 
district  has  been  an  attempt  to  prevent  a  splitting  of  a 
ballot,  and  that  the  voter  is  thereby  foreclosed  from  the 
free  exercise  of  his  right  of  choice.  Such  criticisms  have 
resulted  in  making  the  use  of  voting  machines  a  political 
issue,  with  the  result  of  partisan  prejudice  being  aroused. 
In  consequence  of  this,  the  voting  machines  having  been 
injected  into  the  question  they  are  condemned  upon  the 
slightest  pretext.  An  instance  in  the  last  election  in  the 
state  of  New  York,  where  voting  machines  failed  to  oper- 
ate in  the  city  of  Elmira,  has  been  particularly  quoted 
in  the  press  of  this  state.  With  regard  to  this  failure 
the  commission  desires  to  point  out,  what  has  been  noticed 
so  far  as  it  can  learn,  the  fact  that  the  machines  used 
in  the  city  of  Elmira  were  inferior  to  those  used  in  the 
state  of  New  Jersey,  being  machines  of  an  old  type  and 
one  of  the  first  put  into  public  use;  whereas  those  in  oui" 
state  are  of  the  latest  approved  kind,  and  with  them  the 
failure  in  Elmira  is  practically  an  impossibility. 


702  Appendix. 

From  its  five  years'  careful  observation  of  the  use  of 
voting  machines  the  commission  is  persuaded  that  for 
every  alleged  failure  of  a  machine  there  have  been  a  num- 
ber of  actual  failures  of  voting  with  the  ballot-box,  and 
that  every  objection  which  has  been  made  to  the  use  of 
machines  in  this  state  can  be  obviated  if  existing  laws 
be  amended  in  three  or  four  particulars:  (1)  By  the  pro- 
vision that  machines  shall  be  distributed  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  primarily  to  the  cities  of  the  first  class,  and, 
when  these  are  completely  equipped,  to  the  cities  of  the 
second  class,  and  that  the  total  equipment  of  the  state 
should  be  carried  out  on  these  lines.  The  wide  scatter- 
ing of  machines  throughout  the  state  in  remote  districts 
has  greatly  handicapped  the  work  of  education  of  the 
voters,  and  by  the  use  of  two  systems  of  voting,  in  cities, 
towns  and  townships,  the  duties  and  burdens  of  the  clerks 
and  others  having  the  general  supervision  of  the  machines 
are  doubled,  and  that  attention  which  is  requisite  for  the 
machines  is  not  given  them.  If  cities  were  completely 
equipped  for  them  suitable  provision  would  be  made  for 
their  setting,  and  the  work  of  instruction  of  the  election 
boards  and  of  the  public  could  be  much  more  thoroughly 
undertaken.  For  example,  in  the  cities  of  Newark  and 
Jersey  City,  where  custodians  are  employed  who  devote 
their  attention  to  the  machines,  and  who  have  charge  of 
their  setting,  under  direction  of  the  city  clerks,  machines 
are  used  without  the  slightest  difficulty  lieing  encountered. 
As  an  alternative  suggestion  to  the  foregoing,  or  in  sup- 
plement thereto,  if  the  machines  already  assigned  remain 
in  the  places  of  their  designation,  or  if  the  complete  equip- 
ment of  the  state  be  carried  out  (2),  by  placing  the  gen- 
eral charge  of  the  machines  in  a  county  under  the  county 
clerk,  who  is  responsible  for  the  printing  and  distribution 
of  the  ballots.  Devolving  the  responsibility  for  proper 
setting  upon  such  clerks  will  insure  a  proper  and  ade- 
quate supervision  of  their  setting  in  due  season  for  elec- 
tion. 

(3)  A  further  recommendation  that  the  commission 
would  gladly  see  adopted  would  be  such  an  amendment 
to  the  law  as  would  do  away  with  the  necessity  now  ex- 
isting under  its  provisions  for  the  use  of  endorsing  bars. 
So  long  as  it  is  necessary  under  the  statute  that  each  party 
should  have  a  separate  row,  and  that  the  offices  to  be  filled 
should  appear  with  captions  above  them,  the  name  of_a 
candidate  for  any  office  occurring  as  a  group,  when  said 


Appendix.  703 

candidate  is  endorsed,  must  appear  twice  upon  the  ma- 
chine, or  as  many  times  as  he  shall  be  endorsed.  This 
necessitates  the  use  of  endorsing  bars  connecting  his  name 
wherever  it  occurs,  in  order  that  the  voter  may  not  by 
any  possibility  be  able  to  vote  for  one  man  more  than 
once,  or  as  many  times  as  there  are  candidates  to  be  elec- 
ted for  such  group  office.  In  several  states,  notably  Min- 
nesota and  Massachusetts,  the  laws  provide  for  an  ar- 
rangement of  the  ballot  by  offices,  whereby  first  appear 
the  offices  to  be  filled,  next  the  names  of  candidates  there- 
for respectively,  and  following  the  names  of  the  candi- 
dates the  names  and  emblems  of  the  parties  of  which  the 
candidate  is  the  nominee.  In  case  the  candidate  be  en- 
dorsed his  name  appears  but  once,  the  endorsing  parties 
being  printed  after  his  name.  This  obviates  the  neces- 
sity now  existing  under  the  law  for  endorsing  bars,  and 
would  do  away  with  the  one  main  source  of  objection 
arising  from  the  machine  itself,  and  fruitful  of  so  many 
criticisms  adverse  to  it.  Irrespective  of  the  question  of 
ballot  reform,  such  modification  of  the  law  in  this  regard 
is  earnestly  advocated. 

Further  modification  of  the  existing  law  whereby  the 
use  of  straight  party  ticket  levers  shall  be  done  away 
with  is  also  recommended  for  consideration  as  highly  de- 
sirable, for  the  reason  that,  without  the  straight  party 
ticket  lever,  the  voter  desiring  to  poll  a  ticket  made  in 
part  of  candidates  in  nomination  by  one  party,  and  in  part 
of  candidates  in  nomination  by  others,  would  be  upon  the 
same  plane  as  to  facility  of  voting  as  the  voter  who  de- 
sires to  cast  a  straight  ticket  vote.  In  all  cases  under 
these  conditions  the  voter  would  vote  for  each  candidate 
for  each  office,  and  the  conditions  now  existing,  whereby 
in  order  to  so  vote  he  must  first  pull  a  straight  party  ticket 
lever,  and  then  return  the  pointer  of  the  candidate  whom 
he  wishes  to  scratch  before  he  can  vote  for  the  candidate 
of  his  choice,  would  be  done  away  with.  This  change 
can  be  made  upon  the  machines  in  use  without  any  ex- 
pense to  the  state,  as  the  machines  are  constructed  to  per- 
mit of  the  doing  away  w^ith  the  straight  party  ticket  levers 
without  requiring  other  change. 

The  commission  has  examined  these  several  matters 
with  great  care,  and  has  observed  the  comment  of  the 
public  and  of  the  press  of  the  state,  and  considered  many 
individual  communications  upon  the  subject.  The  con- 
sensus of  opinion  is  that  the  changes  recommended  are 


704  Appendix. 

desirable  and  necessary,  and  we  believe,  if  made,  will  lead 
to  the  very  general  desire  for  the  adoption  of  machine  vot- 
ing. 

The  commission  has  not  been  called  upon  in  the  dis- 
charge of  its  duties  to  examine  any  new  type  of  machine ; 
nor  has  application  been  made  to  it  for  further  examin- 
ation of  any  of  the  machines  which  have  heretofore  been 
submitted  to  it,  but  which  have  failed  to  secure  its  appro- 
val. 

The  apparent  conflict  between  the  enactments  of  the 
legislatures  of  1902,  1904  and  1905  with  reference  to  the 
punishment  of  crimes  or  misdemeanors  arising  from  tam- 
pering with  voting  machines,  which  was  noted  in  the  last 
report  of  this  commission,  still  exists. 

As  required  by  the  act,  the  secretary  has  kept  minutes 
of  all  meetings  and  proceedings  of  the  commission,  has 
preserved  all  the  correspondence  of  the  commission,  which 
correspondence  is  quite  voluminous,  and  has  continued  a 
system  of  keeping  a  record  of  all  machines,  by  number 
and  location,  showing  where  and  when  used,  by  whom 
and  when  inspected,  to  whom  delivered  and  when  and 
where  instruction  has  been  given,  and  data  as  to  reports 
and  inspectors,  repairs  made  and  supplies  furnished. 

Dated  December  31st,  1906. 

Eespectfully  submitted, 

Joseph  A.  Brohel, 
Franklin  Phillips, 
Seward  Davis, 
The  State  Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners. 

STATE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 
DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE. 


I,  David  S.  Crater,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true 
copy  of  Annual  Report  of  the  State  Board  of  Voting  Ma- 
chine Commissioners  of  New  Jersey,  as  the  same  is  taken 
from  and  compared  with  the  original  now  remaining  on 
file  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Wliereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  affixed  my  Official  Seal,  at  Trenton,  this  Twentv-eighth 
day  of  June,  A.  D.  1913. 

(Signed)  David  S.  Crater, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Appendix.  705 

REPORT. 


December  20,  1907. 

To  the  Hon.  Edward  C.  Stokes,  Governor  of  the  State  of 

New  Jersey. 

Sir:  As  successor  to  the  State  Voting  Machine  Com- 
mission I  herewith  present  the  report  for  the  year  1907, 
as  provided  for  in  section  37  of  Chapter  215  of  the  Laws 
of  1905. 

In  making  such  report  sufficiently  comprehensive  it 
will  be  found  desirable  to  review  briefly  the  origin  and 
history  of  the  use  of  voting  machines  in  New  Jersey. 

In  his  inaugural  address  of  1902,  Governor  Murphy, 
after  examining  the  then  existing  ballot  laws,  and  finding 
that  they  failed  to  safeguard,  in  the  highest  degree,  the 
purit}^  of  the  ballot,  and  that  they  provided  for  only  a 
theoretically  secret  ballot,  said: 

"Two  ways  of  improvement  suggest  themselves.  The 
first  is  by  amending  the  present  law  so  that  no  ballot  shall 
be  obtainable  by  the  voter  except  from  the  election  of- 
ficer; and  if  the  law  should  be  so  amended,  I  suggest  the 
Massachusetts  form  of  ballot  as  perhaps  the  best  form 
yet  devised.  The  second  is  the  use  of  the  voting  machine 
in  place  of  the  ballot.  I  am  informed  that  this  machine 
has  been  so  perfected  that  it  is  entirely  practical,  and 
that  in  those  states  where  it  has  been  used  it  has  given 
results  that  have  been  altogether  satisfactory.  The  only 
objection  I  have  heard  to  its  use  is  on  account  of  the  ex- 
pense; but  with  the  large  amount  of  money  in  the  treas- 
ury this  is  not  a  serious  matter.  No  expense  is  unwisely 
incurred  which  will  make  corruption  at  the  polls  impos- 
sible, and  the  expense  might  easily  be  met  by  an  appro- 
priation from  the  treasury  of  the  state  to  provide  each 
county  with  the  necessary  number  of  machines. ' ' 

The  legislature  after  considering  these  suggestions,  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  investigate  the  desirability  of  the 
substitution  of  voting  machines  for  the  paper  ballot;  and 
in  Governor  Murphy's  first  annual  message  in  1903,  after 
urging  the  adoption  of  efficient  primary  laws,  he  said: 

"Second  only  to  the  importance  of  a  proper  primary 
election — perhaps  in  every  way  its  equal  in  importance — 
is  the  necessity  of  providing  means  for  correctly  register- 
ing the  will  of  the  people  at  the  final  election.    The  pres- 


706  Appendix. 

ent  law  is  good,  but  it  is  not  without  its  defects.  The 
last  legislature  provided  for  the  appointment  of  a  com- 
mission to  investigate  the  desirability  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine to  replace  the  ordinary  ballot.  That  commission 
has  done  its  work  and  made  its  report,  which  I  com- 
mend to  your  favorable  consideration." 

Then  follows  a  discussion  of  means  whereby  the  expense 
of  equipping  the  state  with  voting  machines  could  be 
met.  In  partial  compliance  with  Governor  Murphy's  sug- 
gestion, an  appropriation  of  $50,000  was  made  by  the  leg- 
islature of  that  year,  with  which  the  cost  and  expense 
of  installation  of  eighty-one  machines  were  defrayed. 

In  1904,  he  said: 

"At  the  last  session  of  the  legislature  a  law  was  passed 
providing  for  the  introduction  of  voting  machines  in  the 
state,  and  a  commission  was  appointed,  charged  with  duty 
of  examination  and  selection  of  eighty-one  machines. — 

"These  machines  were  distributed  under  the  direction 
of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  various  polling  districts 
throughout  the  state,  and  the  result  of  their  use  has  elici- 
ted the  most  favorable  reports  from  all  the  districts 
wherever  used,  without  exception.  The  advantages  of  the 
voting  machine  are  now  generally  recognized,  and  their 
use  is  increasing  rapidly.  I  suggest  to  the  legislature 
that  if  it  is  not  thought  desirable,  because  of  the  ex- 
pense, to  appropriate  sufficient  to  provide  every  polling 
district  in  the  state  with  a  machine,  that  provision  be 
made  for  one-half  or  one-third,  so  that  within  two  or  three 
years  the  state  may  be  fully  equipped  with  this  desirable 
method  of  registering  the  vote. ' ' 

The  legislature,  however,  appropriated  only  $100,000, 
with  which  190  machines  were  purchased  and  installed, 
and  the  next  year — 1905 — $50,000  was  appropriated,  with 
which  ninety  machines  were  purchased  and  installed, 
making  a  total  of  361  now  in  use  throughout  the  state. 

At  the  outset  these  machines  were  very  popular  and 
greatly  sought.  The  demand  was  greater  than  the  sup- 
ply— all  sections  of  the  state  insisting  upon  an  equitable 
distribution.  The  machines  were  accordingly  distributed 
throughout  the  different  counties,  in  proportion  to  their 
population,  and  located  in  the  respective  polling  places 
so  as,  in  the  judgment  of  the  representative  people  of  the 
communities,  to  afford  the  broadest  opportunity  for  ob- 
servation and  investigation.  No  machine  was  arbitrarily 
located  in  any  district;  but  the  location  was  always  des- 


Appendix.  707 

ignated  upon  the  recommendation  of  representatives  of 
the  people  who  were  regarded  best  fitted  to  speak  for 
them. 

The  control  of  these  machines,  after  their  location  had 
been  designated,  was  originally  vested  in  a  State  Vot- 
ing Machine  Commission.  The  act  abolishing  that  com- 
mission and  voting  its  powers  and  duties  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  was  approved  October  12,  1907,  and  went 
into  effect  immediately,  and  the  whole  responsibility,  here- 
tofore resting  upon  the  commission,  was  added,  twenty- 
three  days  before  election,  to  the  duties  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  and  was  connected  with  that  division  of  his  de- 
partment having  charge  of  the  general  election  machinery. 

Mr.  Charles  0.  Fuller,  the  commission's  very  efficieufc 
chief  inspector,  was  retained  in  his  former  position,  and 
the  temporary  services  of  five  additional  inspectors  were 
secured  for  varying  terms  of  from  one  to  fifteen  days. 
Mr.  Fuller's  report  of  his  inspection,  as  provided  by  the 
statute,  is  on  file. 

About  three  years  ago,  the  early  favor  with  which  the 
machines  had  been  generally  received  began  to  wane,  and 
requests  for  their  removal  from  certain  localities  began 
to  be  received.  Each  year  since  then  the  number  of  these 
requests  has  increased,  and  while  in  a  few  localities  the 
machines  have  retained  their  former  popularity,  in  by 
far  the  larger  number  there  are  active  and  often  well  or- 
ganized movements  seeking  their  removal.  The  depart- 
ment, accordingly,  has  instituted  an  investigation  to  deter- 
mine the  extent  and  reasons  for  this  dissatisfaction,  and 
herewith  presents  a  summary  of  its  findings. 

First  will  be  presented  the  express  complaints,  criti- 
cisms, or  objections,  so  far  as  it  has  been  possible  to  collect 
them,  categorically  arranged  with  what  is  believed  com- 
plete explanations  or  answers.  In  many  instances  the 
criticisms  are  so  clearly  unjust,  and  the  objections  are  so 
unfounded,  that  a  mere  statement  demonstrates  their  un- 
reliability. 

A  presentation  will  then  be  made  of  some  of  the  under- 
lying and  unexpressed  but  real  reasons  for  the  criticisms, 
together  with  some  suggestions  for  further  treatment  of 
the  subject. 

1.  Objection:  That  the  voter  has  no  assurance  that 
his  vote  is  being  recorded  as  intended. 

Reply:  The  voter  has  the  absolute  assurance  of  a 
thoroughly  tested  mechanical  device  that  his  vote  is  be- 


708  Appendix. 

ing  recorded  as  cast.  This  assurance  must,  of  necessity, 
be  much  greater  than  that  which  can  be  given  by  any  hu- 
man agency.  No  properly  adjusted  mechanical  device 
can  do  anything  else  than  that  for  which  it  is  designed. 
If  it  is  set  right — and,  in  the  case  of  the  voting  machine, 
this  is  the  duty  of  the  official  custodians  of  the  machine — 
it  will  work  right.  It  cannot  do  otherwise.  On  the  con- 
trary, human  frailties  always  intervene  to  throw  a  very 
serious  doubt  about  the  casting  of  a  paper  ballot.  Our 
business  men  long  ago  abandoned  the  human  calculator 
for  the  adding  machine;  the  petty  cashier  for  the  cash 
register;  and  the  general  public  is  always  horrified  when 
informed  that  railroads  are  still  relying  on  human  agencies 
for  train  protection  rather  than  on  the  automatic  signal 
devices.  Men  demand  modern  machinery  in  their  busi- 
ness, and  for  the  protection  of  their  lives  and  property; 
but  they  insist  on  exposing  their  sacred  ballot  to  the 
chances  and  errors  of  human  nature.  No  voter  should 
put  as  great  reliance  on  his  own  fallibility  as  he  does  in  a 
properly  tested  machine. 

Further,  with  a  paper  ballot  the  voter  has  no  assur- 
ance that  it  will  not  come  out  of  the  box  a  "marked"  bal- 
lot. A  particle  of  dirt,  or  piece  of  lead  pencil,  either  ac- 
cidentally or  intentionally  placed  in  the  polling  booth,  or 
perhaps  in  some  way  attached  either  to  his  own  person  or 
to  that  of  the  election  officer,  or,  as  is  often  the  case,  some 
printer's  mark  may,  and  very  frequently  does,  entirely 
vitiate  his  ballot.  This  year  throughout  New  Jersey,  2,856 
ballots,  or  about  .73  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  total  vote,  were 
rejected.  In  1905,  2,387  ballots,  or  .62  of  one  per  cent, 
of  the  total  vote  were  rejected.  In  1906,  2,591  ballots  or 
.62  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  total  vote,  were  rejected.  In 
1907,  2,591  ballots,  or  .71  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  total  vote, 
were  rejected.  These  statistics  show  that  every  year 
about  seven  votes  out  of  every  thousand  are  annually 
thus  practically  disfranchised. 

In  Newark  this  year  there  were  669  rejected  ballots, 
or  nearly  two  persons  out  of  every  hundred  voting  paper 
ballots  in  that  city  were  disfranchised. 

During  each  of  the  last  three  years  there  have  been  ap- 
proximately 150,000  voting  machine  votes,  or  over  600,- 
000  machine  votes  in  New  Jersey  during  the  five  years 
of  their  use;  and  of  all  these  votes  cast  on  voting  ma- 
chines in  New  Jersey,  no  man  has  ever  been  thus  disfran- 
chised.   Such  a  thing  is  mechanically  impossible. 


Appendix.  709 

Nor  can  the  voter  safely  rely  on  his  eye  to  assure  him 
that  the  ballot  which  he  hands  the  election  officer  is  the 
one  which  is  deposited  in  the  box.  Sleight-of-hand  man- 
ipulation is  nowhere  more  highly  remunerated  than  when 
possessed  by  election  officers;  and  when  an  election  officer 
possesses  this  acquirement,  and  wishes  to  use  it,  the 
chance  of  the  voter  having  the  vote  cast  as  intended  is 
not  greater  than  is  the  chance  of  success  of  the  uninitiated 
gambler  at  the  country  fair.  An  entirely  new  set  of  bal- 
lots may  be,  and  occasionally  has  been,  substituted  for  the 
rightful  contents  of  the  box.  It  is  an  uninformed  voter,  in- 
deed, who  regards  his  own  precaution  as  more  reliable 
and  accurate  than  a  properly  adjusted  machine. 

2.  Objection:  That  the  manifold  complications  of  the 
machine  make  voting  difficult,  and  embarrass,  or  actually 
disfranchise:  first,  the  illiterate;  second,  the  aged  and 
infirm;  third,  those  of  a  non-mechanical  turn  of  mind. 

Reply:  Tliose  wha  sincerely  believe  that  voting  with 
machines  is  a  complicated  process  have  little  knowledge 
of  their  use.  Machine  voting  is  accomplished  not  only 
with  much  greater  speed,  but  with  greater  ease  than  with 
the  paper  ballot.  The  turning  of  a  pointer,  which  is  in 
the  nature  of  a  knob,  is  both  theoretically  and  actually 
much  more  easily  and  speedily  accomplished  than  by 
either  the  preparation  of  a  paper  ballot  for  the  envelope 
or  the  erasing  of  a  name  and  the  insertion  of  another, 
whether  it  be  done  by  pencil  or  paster.  This  is  not  only 
theory,  but  the  result  of  actual  demonstration,  even  though 
the  voter  avails  himself  of  our  present  provisions  for  pre- 
paring the  ballot  before  entering  the  booth.  By  actual 
tests  the  same  person  can  accomplish  voting  in  from  one- 
fourth  to  one-sixth  of  the  time  on  a  voting  machine  that  he 
can  by  a  paper  ballot,  and  this  holds  more  true  in  case  of 
split  tickets  than  in  straight  ticket  voting. 

Tlie  illiterate  man  cannot  possibly  prepare  his  own 
paper  ballot  intelligently  or  know  that  it  has  been  pre- 
pared as  he  directed ;  but  if  he  possesses  sufficient  knowl- 
edge to  count  thirty  (that  being  the  number  of  spaces  on 
each  row  of  our  machines),  and  knows  the  difference  be- 
tween right  and  left,  he  will  have  no  difficulty  in  acquir- 
ing a  knowledge  of  how  to  cast  his  ballot  properly  on  a 
voting  machine. 

This  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  aged  and  infirm — 
the  machine  requiring  much  less  effort  to  vote  than  does 
the  paper  ballot,  and  the  same  legal  assistance  allowed 


710  Appendix. 

in  casting  a  paper  ballot   is   allowed  in   using  a   voting 
machine. 

The  man  so  deficient  in  mechanical  knowledge  as  to  be 
embarrassed  in  voting  on  a  machine  must  find  equal  em- 
barrassment in  getting  in  or  out  of  a  room,  especially  if 
the  room  is  strange  and  there  are  several  doors  properly 
labeled.  The  same  mechanical  knowledge  enabling  him 
to  turn  the  knob  of  a  proper  door  will  enable  him  to  cast 
his  ballot  for  the  desired  candidate.  The  difficulty  is 
that  he  learned  the  art  of  opening  doors  in  his  earliest 
youth,  and  he  declines  now  to  take  the  little  time  neces- 
sary to  apply  these  same  mechanical  principles  in  acquir- 
ing a  knowledge  of  which  is  the  proper  knob  to  turn  to 
cast  his  vote  for  the  desired  candidate;  or,  once  having 
learned,  fails  to  refresh  his  memory  before  attempting  to 
vote  the  second  time,  and  forthwith  blames  the  machine 
for  an  embarrassing  lapse  of  memory.  The  principle  ot 
operating  the  two  knobs  is  exactly  the  same. 

3.  Objection:  That  the  splitting  of  ballots  cannot  b.^ 
accomplished  except,  first,  at  the  risk  of  indicating  by  the 
"click"  to  those  outside  that  splitting  is  being  done,  and 
second,  by  the  length  of  time  that  the  voter  spends  in  the 
booth. 

Reply:  It  is  at  the  voter's  own  option  whether  the  al- 
leged click  is  made.  It  is  the  result  of  the  metallic 
pointer  coming  in  contact  with  the  metallic  frame.  If 
the  contact  is  violent,  the  click  will  be  heard.  If  the 
pointer  is  moved  moderately,  the  contact  between  the  two 
metals  will  be  noiseless.  Besides  that,  the  voter  may 
turn  as  many  pointers  and  make  as  many  clicks  as  he 
sees  fit,  and  still  vote  a  straight  ticket  or  one  in  which 
the  cutting  has  been  done  in  a  noiseless  manner,  accord- 
ing to  his  feeling  or  disposition. 

Second,  the  length  of  time  that  the  voter  spends  behind 
■  the  curtain  bears  no  more  relation  to  the  kind  of  ticket 
he  is  preparing  to  vote  than  does  the  length  of  time 
which  he  would  spend  in  the  booth  preparing  his  paper 
ballot.  Some  men  naturally  think  and  act  much  more 
quickly  than  others.  The  actual  time  consumed  in  mov- 
ing the  pointers  is  momentary. 

4.  Objection:  That  the  use  of  the  machine  conduces 
to  straight  ticket  voting. 

Reply:  The  voting  machine,  properly  used,  not  only 
does  not  conduce  to  straight  ticket  voting,  but  the  result 
is  quite  the  contrary,  as  the  following  table  will  show: 


Appendix.  711 

In  Hunterdon  County  six  polling  districts  used  ma- 
chines, and  twenty-one  used  paper  ballots.  At  the  last 
election  there  were  876  Republican  gubernatorial  votes 
and  789  Republican  assembly  votes  cast  on  machines,  or 
eighty-seven  assembly  cuts.  There  were' 1,929  Repub- 
lican gubernatorial  paper  ballot  votes,  yet  there  were 
1,921  Republican  assembly  paper  ballot  votes,  showing  a 
difference  of  only  eight  assembly  cuts  with  paper  ballots. 

If  the  use  of  voting  machines  conduces  to  straight  ticket 
voting,  there  should  be  proportionately  fewer  cuts  on  vot- 
ing machines  than  with  paper  ballots.  If  the  same  pro- 
portion of  cuts  is  to  be  maintained  with  paper  ballots  as 
with  voting  machines,  the  number  of  cuts  on  the  ma- 
chine should  bear  the  same  relation  to  the  number  of  cuts 
with  the  paper  ballot  that  the  total  number  of  guberna- 
torial machine  votes  bears  to  the  total  number  of  guber- 
natorial paper  ballot  votes;  and  if  that  proportion  had 
been  maintained  in  Hunterdon  County  this  year  there 
would  have  been  191  assembly  paper  ballot  cuts,  instead 
of  eight,  the  actual  number. 

At  the  last  election  in  Bergen  County  there  were  61 
paper  ballot  precincts  and  15  voting  machine  precincts. 
There  were  3,054  Republican  gubernatorial  machine  votes 
and  2,841  senatorial  machine  votes  cast,  or  212  machine 
senatorial  cuts.  There  were  8,139  Republican  guberna- 
torial paper  ballots  and  6,836  Republican  senatorial  pa- 
per ballot  votes  cast,  or  303  senatorial  paper  ballot  cuts. 
Applying  the  same  rule  just  used  in  the  Hunterdon 
County  case,  there  should  have  been  502  senatorial  paper 
ballot  cuts,  instead  of  303,  or  66  per  cent,  greater  pro- 
portionate number  of  voting  machine  voters  cutting  their 
tickets  in  the  paper  ballot  precincts. 

The  voting  in  the  City  of  Trenton,  where  much  cutting 
was  done,  is  interesting.  There  were  2,522  Republican 
gubernatorial  votes  and  2,712  average  Republican  as- 
sembly votes  cast  on  the  machines,  or  190  assembly  cred- 
its. There  were  5,319  Republican  gubernatorial  paper 
ballot  votes  and  5,869  paper  ballot  assembly  votes,  or  550 
assembly  credits.  Had  the  same  proportion  of  credits 
been  maintained  in  the  paper  ballot  precincts  that  existed 
in  the  voting  machine  precincts,  there  would  have  been 
only  410  credits,  or  less  than  550,  the  number  actually 
received.  While  for  mayor  in  the  same  city  there  were 
145  credits  in  the  voting  machine  precincts  and  187  in  the 
paper  ballot  precincts.    Had  the  same  proportion  in  the 


712  Appendix. 

paper  ballot  precincts  been  maintained  that  existed  in  the 
voting  machine  precincts,  there  would  have  been  313 
credits,  instead  of  the  187  actually  received.  "Whereas, 
again,  in  the  case  of  the  Tax  Eeceiver,  the  Republican 
candidate  received  216  credits  in  the  voting  machine  pre- 
cincts, as  against  571  in  the  paper  ballot  wards.  Whereas, 
if  the  proportion  of  cuts  in  the  voting  machine  precincts 
had  been  maintained  in  the  ballot  precincts,  there  would 
have  been  463  credits,  instead  of  the  571  actually  received. 
This  shows  that  the  cutting  for  the  assembly  and  Tax 
Receiver  candidates  was  proportionately  greater  in  the 
paper  ballot  districts  than  in  the  voting  machine  districts ; 
whereas,  for  the  mayoralty  candidate,  the  proportionate 
cutting  in  the  voting  machine  precincts  was  greater  than 
in  the  paper  ballot  districts. 

In  Summit,  there  was  one  voting  machine  and  three 
paper  ballot  districts.  In  the  machine  district,  the  Re- 
publican gubernatorial  candidate  received  213  votes.  The 
Republican  candidate  for  mayor  received  162,  a  cut  of 
fifty-one  votes.  In  the  three  paper  ballot  districts  the 
Republican  gubernatorial  candidate  received  395  votes; 
the  Republican  mayoralty  candidate  310,  or  eighty-five 
cuts.  If  the  same  proportion  of  voting  machine  cuts  had 
been  maintained  in  the  paper  ballot  districts  there  would 
have  been  ninety-four  cuts,  instead  of  eighty-five. 

But  perhaps  the  most  interesting  of  all  the  New  Jersey 
elections  this  year  was  that  held  in  the  Borough  of  Wash- 
ington, where  the  two  voting  districts  were  equipped  with 
machines.  The  ticket  consisted  of  gubernatorial,  as- 
sembly, mayoralty  and  two  councilmanic  candidates.  The 
Republican  and  Democratic  parties  nominated  the  same 
persons  for  municipal  offices.  In  opposition  to  this  mu- 
nicipal ticket,  two  Independent  tickets,  each  also  contain- 
ing the  same  names,  were  nominated,  so  that  when  a  per- 
son desired  to  vote  for  these  Independent  municipal  can- 
didates and  also  for  gubernatorial  and  assembly  offices, 
it  became  necessary  to  make  three  distinct  cuts  in  each 
instance.  The  result  showed  that  out  of  646  votes  cast 
at  the  election  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Governor 
had  a  majority  of  103,  and  the  Republican  candidate  for 
assembly  a  majority  of  one,  showing  104  cuts,  or  sixteen 
per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of,  votes  cast.  The  Inde- 
pendent candidates  for  municipal  offices  received,  re- 
spectively, 169,  185  and  228  votes,  or  twenty-six,  twenty- 
eight  and  thirty-five  per  cent.,  respectively,  of  the  entire 


Appendix.  713 

vote  cast.  The  voters  of  this  municipality  found  no  dif- 
ficulty in  splitting  tickets  in  any  way  they  desired. 

Last  year,  on  the  voting  machine  used  at  Red  Bank,  in 
this  State,  the  largest  number  of  votes  for  any  Repub- 
lican candidate  was  240,  and  the  smallest  number  162,  a 
difference  of  seventy-eight ;  while  the  largest  number  for 
any  Democratic  candidate  was  .219,  and  the  smallest  141, 
also  a  difference  of  seventy-eight.  It  was  freely  conceded 
by  party  workers  on  each  side  that  there  was  more  split- 
ting done  on  this  machine  than  had  ever  been  done  be- 
fore with  a  paper  ballot. 

Last  year,  also,  in  the  Ocean  Grove  district  of  Nep- 
tune Township,  the  largest  number  of  votes  cast  for  any 
Republican  candidate  was  288,  and  the  smallest  number 
181,  making  a  difference  of  107.  The  largest  vote  cast 
for  any  Democratic  candidate  was  193,  and  the  smallest 
111,  or  a  difference  of  eighty-two. 

In  Buffalo,  New  York,  where  voting  machines  have  been 
used  exclusively  for  nine  years,  in  each  polling  district, 
at  the  last  election  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Police 
Justice  received  a  majority  of  4,034,  while  the  Republican 
candidate  for  County  Judge  received  a  plurality  of  11,469. 
In  1905,  in  the  same  city,  the  Democratic  candidate  for 
mayor  received  10,085,  while  the  Republican  candidate 
for  Overseer  of  the  Poor  received  1,114  plurality,  show- 
ing that  the  voters  of  Buffalo  know  well  how  to  split 
tickets  on  voting  machines. 

In  1906,  in  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin,  also  equipped  with 
machines,  certain  Republican  candidates  received  plu- 
ralities from  five  to  seven  thousand;  while  an  Indepen- 
dent candidate  for  District  Attorney,  running  on  a  ticket 
upon  which  he  was  the  only  candidate,  received  a  plu- 
rality of  125. 

These  are  only  a  few  places  chosen  at  random  from 
both  the  returns  of  this  and  previous  years.  Similar  re- 
sults will  be  found  in  a  very  large  majority  of  the  dis-- 
tricts  where  voting  machines  have  been  used. 

This,  too,  is  all  in  view  of  the  fact  that  at  many  polling 
places  the  public  has  been  inadequately  informed  of  the 
method  of  voting  by  interested  election  officers  and  oth- 
ers, a  very  common  practice  being  for  ward  workers  to 
establish  impromptu  schools  for  the  purpose  of  instruct- 
ing the  voters  in  the  art  of  voting  some  particular  straight 
ticket  only;  and  often  election  officers  themselves  have 
positively  refused  to  instruct  intending  voters  as  to  the 


714  Appendix. 

proper  way  of  splitting  tickets.  In  this  respect,  both  our 
law  and  our  practice  is  deficient  in  that  voters  have  not 
had  the  rightful  opportunity  of  acquiring  all  the  knowl- 
edge necessary  to  enable  them  to  use  voting  machines 
properly  and  conveniently;  while  voters  have  frequently 
been  found  possessed  either  of  a  timid  disposition  or  of 
a  false  pride  which  prevented  them  from  making  the  nec- 
essary investigation.  Of  course,  the  machine  cannot  be 
held  accountable  for  such  conditions. 

The  experience  of  the  department  has  clearly  demon- 
strated that  in  those  voting  districts  and  municipalities 
where  the  voters  have  received  the  most  efficient  instruc- 
tions the  voting  has  been  most  successful,  and  the  vot- 
ing machines  stand  in  the  highest  favor. 

5. 

Objection:  That  the  purpose  of  the  machine  can  be 
fraudulently  defeated. 

Reply:  This  charge  has  often  been  made.  Hundreds 
of  men  have  loudly  proclaimed  their  ability  to  defeat  the 
will  of  the  voter — to  "beat"  the  machine,  as  they  call  it — ■ 
but  not  one  has  ever  been  able  to  demonstrate  success- 
fully his  ability  to  perform  such  a  feat.  No  one  has  ever 
been  able  to  interfere  in  the  least  degree  with  the  free 
choice  of  the  voter  in  the  performance  of  any  legal  act,  to 
prove  that  the  machine  admitted  of  any  fraudulent  act  of 
a  voter,  or  to  prevent  the  counting  of  the  vote  as  cast. 
It  is  ready  instantly,  at  the  close  of  the  polls,  to  an- 
nounce the  result  of  the  election,  thus  preventing  the 
midnight  manipulation  of  the  election  returns ;  in  fact,  no 
person  has  yet  found  a  way  to  perform  a  fraudulent  or 
immoral  act  with  it.  Every  statement  of  successful  manip- 
ulation of  the  machine  has  been  found  incapable  of  ac- 
complishment. 

6. 

Objection:     That  the  machine  ballot  is  not  secret. 

Eeply:  This  is  another  oft-repeated,  but  false  charge. 
No  one  has  ever  been  able  to  show,  from  the  use  of  a  ma- 
chine, how  another  votes.  It  has  been  stated  that  mir- 
rors, ingeniously  arranged,  or  unauthorized  watchers 
concealed  in  the  walls  have  been  able  to  observe  through 
the  open  space  above  the  machine  the  lever  which  the 
voter  is  pulling.    Neither  of  these  things  is  scarcely  pos- 


Appendix.  715 

sible  of  accomplishment;  and  if  they  should  be,  the  fault 
lies  with  the  election  officers  for  allowing  them  to  exist. 
An  election  officer  who  would  allow  such  a  thing  would 
be  equally  culpable  wdtli  the  officer  who  would  deliberately 
allow  an  unauthorized  person  to  go  behind  the  curtain 
while  a  voter  was  preparing  his  ballot. 

Neither  the  bell  nor  the  click  of  the  lever  can  possibly 
reveal  to  the  most  sensitive  ear  which  ticket  is  being 
voted,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  only  one  bell  in  the 
machine,  and  all  levers  actuate  the  same  shaft  which  con- 
trols the  bell.  The  pitch  and  the  tone  are  the  same;  the 
volume  of  sound  depends  entirely  on  the  vigor  with  which 
the  lever  is  turned  or  pulled;  while  in  the  case  of  the 
click,  in  each  instance  it  is  the  same  piece  of  metal,  cast 
from  the  same  material,  and  is,  at  each  pointer,  attuned 
to  the  same  key  or  pitch.  The  musical  ear  theory  is  purely 
imaginative. 

The  entrance  knob  connects  only  with  the  latch  which 
holds  the  curtain  lever  to  the  left  side.  As  soon  as  the 
knob  is  lifted  and  the  lever  is  moved  two  inches  it  is  en- 
tirely disconnected,  and  so  remains  until  the  curtain  lever 
is  returned  to  the  left  side,  when  it  will  lock  the  curtain 
lever,  which  may  be  released  by  lifting  the  entrance  knob. 

The  election  officer  is  prevented  from  seeing  the  face  of 
the  machine  by  a  heavy  curtain  and  a  small  steel  door 
inside  of  the  curtain.  Even  if  he  stood  in  front  of  the 
machine  he  could  see  nothing,  as  all  of  the  pointers  are 
turned  back  before  the  curtain  begins  to  open. 

7. 

Objection :  That  it  is  unreliable  and  liable  to  err  in  its 
count. 

Reply :  This  is  an  objection  which  belongs  in  the  same 
catalogue  with  the  two  preceding  ones.  Not  a  single 
proven  instance  of  unreliability  has  ever  been  found. 
Every  statement  of  error,  inaccuracy,  or  of  the  machine 
"going  wrong,"  has  been  found  to  be  without  founda- 
tion in  fact.  In  every  instance  where  trouble  has  re- 
sulted the  fault  has  been  found  with  those  in  charge  of 
the  machine.  Every  case  of  this  nature  reported  to  the 
department  has  been  thoroughly  investigated,  and  the 
fact  has  always  been  found  to  be  that  the  machine  has 
been  improperly  adjusted,  notwithstanding  the  express 
instructions  of  the  department.     Nor  is  this  universal 


716  Appendix. 

efficiency  limited  to  machines  in  New  Jersey.  In  every 
State  where  the  machines  which  would  be  approved  un- 
der our  law  are  used  the  same  results  have  been  produced. 

8. 

Objection:    That  the  voter  cannot  see  his  ballot. 

Reply:  The  names  of  all  officers  and  candidates  are 
plainly  printed  on  cards  placed  in  the  face  of  the  ma- 
chine. These  cards  can  be  seen  plainly,  and  the  law  rec- 
ognizes them  as  ballots. 

The  voter  sees  them  when  he  prepares  the  knob  for 
voting  in  the  same  way  that  he  sees  the  paper  ballot  at 
the  time  he  encloses  it  in  the  envelope.  After  he  has 
delivered  the  enclosed  paper  ballot  to  the  election  officer 
he  sees  it  no  more  than  he  sees  the  knob  which  he  has 
placed  over  the  candidate's  name  on  the  voting  machine 
after  he  opens  the  curtain.  In  the  one  case  he  has  the 
absolute  assurance  of  an  impartial  properly  adjusted 
mechanical  contrivance  that  his  vote  is  Ijeing  cast  and 
will  be  counted  as  cast.  In  the  other,  he  must  rely  in  the 
morality  and  the  fallibility  of  a  more  or  less  interested 
and  competent  person  for  both  actually  casting  and  count- 
ing the  ballot.  No  man  can  actually  cast  his  own  paper 
ballot  into  the  box  or  know  that  it  is  counted.  He  not 
only  prepares  his  ballot  on  a  voting  machine,  but  the 
mechanism  is  such  that  he  performs  the  physical  act  both 
of  casting  and  counting  his  o-\vn  vote. 

9. 

Objection:  That  the  independent  voter  considers  it  a 
hardship  under  the  arrangement  of  the  straight  party 
levers. 

Reply:  An  independent  voter  who  prefers  not  to  pull 
any  of  the  party  levers  can,  by  pulling  up  the  releasing 
knob,  which  is  below  the  party  levers,  unlock  the  ma- 
chine, and  then  vote  for  such  candidate  as  he  wishes. 

10. 

Objection:  That  the  use  of  the  voting  machine  is  un- 
constitutional. 

Reply:   The  Constitution  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey 

provides  that  the  Legislature  shall  prescribe  the  method 

'        of  voting;  and  voting  machines  have  been  legalized  as  a 

method  of  voting.     In  this,  our  laws  are  either  similar 


Appendix.  717 

to  or  more  liberal  than  those  of  Michigan,  Illinois  and 
Minnesota,  where  the  question  has  been  tested  in  the 
highest  courts,  as  well  as  Ehode  Island,  where  the  courts, 
as  far  as  tried,  have  sustained  their  use.  In  Massachu- 
setts, the  Constitution  required  that  the  ballot  be  written, 
and  the  court  held  that  the  voting  machine  was  not  in 
accordance  with  that  provision. 

11. 

Objection :  That  the  voter  can  vote  more  than  one  ticket 
while  in  the  booth. 

Reply:  The  voter  can  select  from  the  candidates  of 
each  political  party,  but  he  cannot  vote  for  more  candi- 
dates for  any  office  than  the  number  to  which  he  is  en- 
titled. 

12. 

Objection :  That  the  voter  cannot  vote  in  a  group  where 
the  candidates'  names  appear  underneath  each  other. 

Reply :  The  voting  machine  should  be  arranged  before 
the  election  so  that  voters  can  vote  for  any  of  the  candi- 
dates for  any  office,  irrespective  of  position.  It  is  capable 
of  such  arrangement  that  any  legal  vote  can  be  cast  on 
a  machine  that  can  be  cast  with  a  paper  ballot.  It  some- 
times happens  that  there  are  more  party  nominations  or 
more  names  on  a  ticket  than  the  seven  party  thirty-candi- 
dates machines  in  use  in  New  Jersey  will  accommodate, 
but  the  municipality  can  replace  such  machines  with 
larger  ones. 

13. 

Objection :  That  the  voter  is  obliged  to  move  the  ques- 
tion pointer  in  addition  to  the  voting  of  his  straight  party 
ticket,  and  that  he  forgets  to  do  this. 

Reply :  Voting  on  question  is,  as  it  is  believed  it  should 
be,  entirely  separated  from  party  politics.  If  a  question 
is  to  be  advocated  by  one  party  and  opposed  by  another 
party,  it  can  be  placed  on  the  party  rows  of  the  parties 
for  and  against  such  questions.  This  is  done  in  some 
States. 

14. 

Objection :  That  the  voter  cannot  vote  for  a  man  who 
has  not  been  nominated. 

Reply:   Ample  provision  is  made  on  the  machine  for 


718  Appendix. 

voting  for  persons  who  are  not  nominated.    An  absurd 
criticism,  entirely  at  variance  with  the  facts. 

15. 

Objection:  That  the  voter,  in  using  the  round  emblem 
machines,  is  liable  to  pull  the  wrong  ticket  lever. 

Eeply:  A  voter  should  be  as  careful  in  voting  by  a 
machine  as  with  a  paper  ballot,  that  he  votes  as  he  wished 
to  vote.  If,  desiring  to  vote  a  Republican  ballot,  he  pulls 
the  Democratic  lever,  he  should  blame  himself,  just  as 
though  he  picked  the  Democratic  instead  of  the  Repub- 
lican paper  ballot  in  the  booth,  both  being  plainly  labeled. 

16. 

Objection:  That  the  machine  can  be  set  so  as  to  favor 
the  party  in  power. 

Reply:  This  statement  is  entirely  without  foundation. 
Both  the  statute  and  the  machine  are  absolutely  impar- 
tial. It  favors  only  the  candidates  voted  for.  It  cannot 
do  otherwise,  except  at  the  connivance  of  all  the  members 
of  the  election  board  and  all  the  challengers. 

17. 

Objection :  That  the  party  ticket  appearing  on  the  first 
row  has  the  advantage. 

Reply:  This  is  purely  imaginative,  probably  the  out- 
growth of  the  errors  incident  to  the  slightly  confusing 
round  emblem  machines,  eighty-one  of  which  are  in  use 
in  New  Jersey.  If  the  tendency  in  using  these  machines 
is  to  vote  for  the  party  occupying  the  row  below  the  one 
intended,  the  party  having  the  first  row  has  the  decided 
disadvantage  rather  than  advantage.  If,  for  instance, 
with  our  present  statutory  arrangement  of  party  rows, 
the  Socialist  party  gets  an  abnormal  number  of  votes, 
due  to  a  certain  percentage  of  Democrats  pulling  the 
wrong  lever,  it  is  fair  to  presume  an  equal  percentage  of 
Republican  voters  have  also  pulled  the  lever  below  the 
one  they  intended,  or  the  Democratic  lever,  so  that  the 
Democratic  loss  to  the  Socialists  has  been  made  up  by 
Republican  voters,  but  there  being  no  lever  above  the 
Republican  column,  their  loss  to  the  Democrats  cannot 
be  made  up.  The  department  recommends  that  the  em- 
blems on  these  eighty-one  machines  be  changed  from  the 
round  to  the  square  style,  with  which  there  can  be  no 
ground  for  confusion. 


Appendix.  719 

Beai,  Eeasons  for  Objections. 

In  next  considering  the  unexpressed,  but  what  appears 
to  be  the  real  reasons  for  objecting  to  the  use  of  the 
voting  machine,  nothing  will  be  said,  except  that  which 
is  supported  either  by  documentary  evidence  now  on  file 
in  the  department,  or  upon  the  personal  observation  of 
facts  and  conditions,  of  those  connected  with  the  depart- 
ment, who  stand  ready  to  verify  their  statements,  if 
need  be. 

Experience  has  proved  that  the  present  method  of 
locating  machines  is  entirely  erroneous.  As  before  ob- 
served, it  is  the  outgrowth  of  the  desire  of  the  respective 
members  of  the  Legislature  to  obtain  for  their  own  coun- 
ties and  localities  an  equitable  distributive  share  of  the 
machines,  with  the  result  that  they  were  widely  scattered 
over  the  whole  State,  and  both  the  machine  and  the  paper 
ballot  mode  of  voting  have  existed  in  municipalities  having 
more  than  one  voting  district,  a  very  unfortunate  arrange- 
ment. The  effect  of  this  method  of  distribution  was  also 
to  impress  the  members  of  the  minority  party  with  the 
idea  that  the  machines  had  been  so  located  for  the  pur- 
pose of  working  some  partisan  disadvantage  to  them. 
This  idea  was,  indeed,  in  many  instances,  strengthened 
by  those  having  charge  of  their  location  or  of  instructing 
voters  in  the  methods  of  voting.  In  many  municipalities 
it  was  found  almost  impossible  to  prevail  upon  those 
charged  with  the  duty  of  instructing  voters  to  give  fur- 
ther instructions  than  became  necessary  to  vote  the  par- 
ticular ballot  which  the  instructor  desired  to  see  suc- 
cessful. Besides  this,  the  broad  distribution  of  the  ma- 
chines made  both  inconvenient  and  expensive -the  depart- 
ments '  work  of  installation  and  instruction.  After  the 
second  year,  the  department  endeavored,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, to  equip  completely  a  given  municipality,  and  experi- 
ence has  demonstrated  that  where  this  has  been  done  and 
where  the  instruction  has  been  liberal  and  impartial, 
voters  find  little  difficulty  in  using  the  machine,  and  in 
these  localities  they  have  accordingly  attained  the  highest 
degree  of  popularity.  Nor  were  the  minority  or  unsuc- 
cessful parties  the  only  ones  who  believed  the  machines 
capable  of  partisan  bias.  It  seems  impossible  for  some 
minds  to  conceive  of  an  election  unaffected  by  immoral 
and  illegal  practices.    Many  of  those  who  were  successful 


720  Appendix. 

at  the  earlier  elections  either  felt  or  imagined  that  per- 
haps the  machine  had  been  to  their  advantage,  and  when 
in  1906  and  1907,  in  some  of  the  most  populous  localities, 
the  formerly  successful  parties  found  themselves  on  elec- 
tion night  in  the  minority,  they,  too,  condemned  the  ma- 
chine as  one  that  repudiated  its  former  immoral  alliances, 
and  forthwith  denounced  it  as  a  false  friend.  Members 
of  all  parties  were  altogether  too  willing  to  ascribe  to 
the  machine  a  proficiency  and  a  partiality,  which,  by  the 
very  nature  of  its  mechanical  construction,  they  ought 
to  have  known  it  was  absolutely  incapable  of  performing. 

The  machine  has,  accordingly,  been  compelled  to  pay 
the  penalty  of  offenses  which  existed  only  in  the  imagina- 
tion of  those  who  believed  it  capable  of  doing  or  sought 
to  have  it  do  an  illegal  and  corrupt  act. 

With  reference  to  those  who  are  opponents  of  the 
voting  machine,  the  department  finds  that  they  naturally 
divide  themselves  into  three  general  classes;  first,  those 
elderly  persons  who  only  with  difficulty  acquire  a  knowl- 
edge of  new  things  and  those  whose  minds  have  long 
been  trained  in  the  consideration  of  academic  and  ab- 
stract propositions,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  consideration 
of  all  mechanical  questions ;  second,  those  conservative 
and  those  indifferent  citizens  who  object  to  making  the 
little  effort  necessary  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  voting; 
and,  third,  undoubtedly  the  least  numerous,  but  by  far 
the  most  insistent  of  all,  party  agents  who  receive  com- 
pensation for  distributing  ballots,  and  those  who  desire 
to  practice  some  other  form  of  corruption  of  the  ballot. 

On  this,  as  well  as  on  all  the  other  points,  the  depart- 
ment speaks  advisedly.  Those  of  the  latter  class  are  the 
least  conspicuous  but  by  far  the  most  active  of  the  op- 
ponents of  the  voting  machine.  They  have  found  open 
advocates  of  the  abolition  of  the  use  of  the  machines  in 
the  members  of  the  two  other  classes,  and  lose  no  oppor- 
tunity of  preying  upon  their  ignorance,  their  indifference 
and  their  prejudices.  The  elderly  and  scholarly  voters — 
those  whose  infirmities  are  either  years,  of  pride  or  of  too 
great  self-reliance — in  attempting  to  vote  find  themselves 
embarrassed  in  the  use  of  the  machine,  and  naturally 
become  provoked  either  with  themselves  or  with  the  ma- 
chine, or  both.  Immediately  upon  leaving  the  polling 
room  they  are  frequently  sought  by  the  sympathetic  but 
designing  vote  manipulator,  who  promptly  condemns  the 
"new  Abomination,"  eloquently  appeals  for  the  "good 


Appendix.  721 

old  ballot  of  our  guileless  forefathers,"  and  forthwith 
converts  the  recently  perplexed  voter  to  open  enmity  for 
the  voting  machine  and  to  unconscious  but  active  and 
valuable  support  of  the  manipulators'  schemes.  Next 
comes  the  indifferent  citizen — the  one  constitutionally  op- 
posed to  anything  new.  He  is  angered  at  the  idea  of  being 
compelled  to  acquaint  himself  with  an  unfamiliar  thing, 
and  before  he  even  tries  to  vote,  and  perhaps  before  he 
sees  the  machine,  becomes  fertile  soil  for  the  ballot  manip- 
ulator's seed. 

But  from  the  vote  buyer's  and  the  vote  seller's  stand- 
point, the  opposition  to  the  machine  is  well  founded. 
Where  voting  machines  are  used  their  occupation  is  goue, 
and  they  are  only  endeavoring  to  protect  their  illegal 
calling  when  they  prey  upon  the  unconscious  prejudices 
of  honorable  men  in  arousing  opposition  to  the  voting 
machine. 

Vote-buying  and  selling  have  been  practically  elimi- 
nated, and  corrupt  manipulation  of  the  ballot  box  abso 
lutely  abolished  in  the  districts  where  voting  machines 
are  used.  In  one  county  where  the  opposition  to  voting 
machines  is  most  vigorous,  the  Prosecutor  of  the  Pleas 
has  advised  the  department  that  the  opposition  originated 
almost  entirely  in  certain  precincts  where  the  alleged  pur- 
chasable vote  had  always  been  very  large.  In  other 
municipalities  where  voting  machines  were  used  ex- 
tensively for  the  first  time  last  year,  the  department  is  ad- 
vised by  the  chief  representatives  of  each  of  the  political 
parties  that,  then,  for  the  first  time,  the  use  of  money 
for  corrupt  purposes  at  elections  was  practically  elimi- 
nated. 

It  is  no  uncommon  thing  to  learn  of  political  ward 
workers  appealing  to  their  superiors  either  to  have  the 
machines  removed  so  that  they  can  resort  to  their  old 
time  methods  of  delivering  the  vote,  or  to  have  a  ma- 
chine located  in  their  district  so  that  the  opposing  side 
cannot  indulge  in  vote-buying. 

These  are  facts,  either  of  official  record  or  personal 
knowledge,  and  can  be  multiplied  many  fold.  Political 
leaders  of  each  party  recognize  and  freely  advise  the 
department  that  the  use  of  the  voting  machine  has  done 
more  to  purify  the  ballot  than  all  the  other  ballot  reform 
laws  yet  enacted. 

There  is,  perhaps,  one  real  objection  to  the  use  of 
voting  machines,  which  the  Legislature  might  well  con- 


722  Appendix. 

sider;  that  is  the  expense.  The  cost  of  these  machines, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  department,  is  more  than  good  busi- 
ness would  indicate  it  should  be,  and  it  immediately  be- 
comes a  question  whether  the  security  to  the  ballot  af- 
forded by  the  voting  machines  is  worth  the  difference 
between  the  cost  of  that  ballot  and  the  most  approved 
paper  ballot  yet  devised. 

After  mature  consideration  of  this  question,  however, 
the  department  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that  in  the 
long  run,  the  voting  machine  method  will  probably  be 
found  the  cheaper  one,  notwithstanding  its  first  high  price. 

Recommendations. 

The  department  desires  to  suggest  certain  changes  in 
both  the  laws  and  the  methods  heretofore  adopted  for 
the  location,  demonstration  and  use  of  the  machines. 

First,  two  systems  of  voting  should  not  exist  in  the 
same  municipality,  and  a  machine  once  located  should  not 
be  removed. 

Second,  arrangements  should  be  made  whereby  every 
voter  may  have  ample  opportunity  to  examine  both  the 
operation  and  the  mechanism  of  the  machine  in  every  de- 
tail. Every  voter  should  also  be  provided,  before  elec- 
tion, with  a  fac-simile  of  the  face  of  the  machine,  show- 
ing how  the  names  of  the  respective  candidates  will  ap- 
pear thereon  on  election  day. 

Third,  each  election  district  where  machines  are  used 
should  be  supplied  with  at  least  one  person  from  each 
political  party  who  is  sufficiently  versed  in  the  mechan- 
ical construction  of  voting  machines  to  pass  such  e:sarai- 
nations  as  the  department  shall  prepare  and  conduct,  and 
all  municipal  clerks  should  either  be  themselves  thus  pre- 
pared or  have  some  one  in  their  employ  who  has  suc- 
cessfully passed  such  an  examination. 

Fourth,  abolition  of  party-levers,  especially  if  the 
Massachusetts,  Montana  or  Minnesota  form  of  paper  bal- 
lot should  be  adopted,  is  also  recommended.  In  such  cases 
provision  should  be  made  that  where  a  candidate  of  a 
given  party  is  endorsed  for  the  same  office  by  other  par- 
ties, his  name  shall  appear  only  once  on  the  face  of  the 
machine,  thereby  eliminating  the  use  of  endorsing  bars, 
a  very  ingenious  and  valuable  device,  but  one  which  elec- 
tion officers  seem,  in  many  instances  incapable  of  com- 
prehending. 


Appendix.  723 

But  the  observation  of  the  department  is  that  the 
present  agitation  in  opposition  to  voting  machines  does 
not  look  so  much  to  a  reform  in  the  methods  of  their  use 
as  to  their  abolition,  and  in  our  free  government  the  will 
of  the  people  must  prevail. 

Ifl  they  are  not  ready  to  accept  this  latest  and  safest 
device  for  the  purity  of  the  ballot,  this  department  cannot 
be  a  party  to  urging  that  it  be  forced  upon  them.  And, 
indeed,  it  would  be  as  impossible  as  it  would  be  improper 
to  accomplish  such  a  result.  But  as  this  department 
is  charged  with  the  care  of  the  election  machinery  of  the 
State,  a  duty  devolves  upon  it  not  only  to  advise  you  of 
such  facts  and  information  as  come  into  possession  re- 
garding the  actual  use  and  working  of  such  machinery, 
but  to  urge  the  adoption  of  the  safest  and  purest  regula- 
tions acceptable  to  the  public.  All  reforms  cannot  be 
accomplished  in  a  day,  and  the  present  generation  cannot 
be  charged  either  with  waning  patriotism  or  low  morality 
if  they  fail  to  regard  immediately  the  importance  of  the 
voting  machine  in  the  same  light  in  which  it  has  appeared 
to  those  who  have  had  the  superior  advantages  in  viewing 
both  the  extent  of  the  election  abuses  and  the  efficiency  of 
the  proposed  remedy,  while  the  conviction  cannot  be 
avoided  that  the  root  of  the  present  opposition  to  the  vot- 
ing machine  is  in  the  impure  motives  of  the  vote  manipu- 
lator, yet  it  must  not  be  understood  that  such  motives  are 
at  the  foundation  of  the  opposition  of  the  great  majority 
of  our  people.  That  either  this  or  some  equally  sure  de- 
vice will  eventually  be  adopted  there  is  not  the  least  doubt. 
Until  that  time  comes,  the  safest  and  most  progressive 
methods  which  the  public  will  accept  should  be  used,  and 
the  best  endeavors  of  the  department  should  be  with  those 
friends  of  the  pure  ballot  who  yet  oppose  the  use  of  the 
voting  machine,  in  any  well  directed  effort  which  may  be 
agreed  upon  to  raise  our  elections  to  a  higher  plane  of 
honesty  and  morality. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that,  with  one  or  two  excep- 
tions, our  present  paper  ballot  system  has  been  abandoned 
by  all  the  northern  states.  So  far  as  known  only  two 
states  allow  the  distribution  of  ballots  outside  the  polling 
booth;  and  herein  the  gates  to  bribery,  as  pointed  out  in 
ex-Governor  Murphy's  inaugurial  address  are  thrown 
widest  open.  New  Jersey,  whose  laws  lead  her  sister 
states  in  so  many  respects,  should  at  least  not  be  behind 


724  Appendix. 

them  in  safeguarding  tlie  purity  of  the  ballot.  If  the 
State  is  not  yet  ready  to  take  a  step  in  advance  of  them  all, 
by  equipping  each  polling  district  with  voting  machines, 
it  can  accept  ex-Governor  Murphy's  alternate  suggestion, 
adopt  the  blanket  ballot,  and  come  abreast  with  the  best 
of  them  in  protecting  the  paper  ballot. 

The  election  laws  of  nearly  every  state  are  on  file  in  the 
election  division  of  this  department,  and  are  open  to  the 
public.  A  careful  consideration  of  the  ballot  provisions 
of  these  laws  has  led  to  a  favorable  opinion  of  a  com- 
bination of  the  Montana,  the  Minnesota,  or  the  Massa- 
chusetts ballot  makes  most  easy  splitting  tickets  or  in- 
dependent voting.  No  paper  ballot  yet  devised  perhaps 
completely  eliminates  the  possibility  of  fraud.  Any  device 
containing  a  proportion  of  the  lauman  element  in  its 
operation  is  liable  to  err.  None  of  the  plans  yet  sug- 
gested, for  instance,  absolutely  does  away  with  the  mark- 
ing of  ballots  so  that  they  may  be  reasonably  identified 
either  by  election  officer  or  voter.  But  the  Ohio  ballot, 
perhaps,  successfully  prevents  the  crimes  incident  to 
having  an  official  ballot  outside  the  polling  booth.  It 
necessarily  complicates  voting,  but  it  insures  reasonable 
purity,  the  desirable  thing.  The  Massachusetts,  Montana, 
and  Minnesota  ballots  conduce  most  easily  to  independent 
voting,  and  it  should  not  be  overlooked  in  considering 
either  of  these  systems  that  the  voting  machine  can  be 
arranged  to  accomplish  the  same  results  that  are  attained 
by  either  of  these  systems.  A  committee  appointed  by 
the  Senate  last  year  to  consider  the  most  efficient  and 
safest  means  of  voting  are  to  report  at  the  coming  session, 
and  their  information  should  be  awaited  before  action  is 
taken.  There  are  many  municipalities  in  the  State  where 
the  public  seem  generally  satisfied  with  the  use  of  the 
voting  machine.  These  people  should  not  be  asked  to 
abandon  them.  For  the  other  districts,  let  the  standard 
of  the  paper  ballots  be  raised  to  the  highest  point  of  per- 
fection yet  attained. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

S.  D.  Dickinson, 
Secretary  of  State. 


Appetidix.  725 

State  of  New  Jersey. 
Department  of  State. 

I,  David  S.  Crater,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey,  Do  Hisreby  Certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a 
true  copy  of  Annual  Eeport  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
regarding  the  Use  of  Voting  Machines,  made  in  pursuance 
■with  the  provisions  of  Section  37  of  Chapter  215,  of  the 
Laws  of  1905,  and  of  Chapter  268  of  the  Laws  of  1907, 
as  the  same  is  taken  from  and  compared  with  the  original 
now  remaining  on  file  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  affixed  my  Official  Seal,  at  Trenton,  this  Twenty- 
eighth  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1913. 

(Signed)  David  S.  Crater, 
(Seal)  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey     Secretary  of  State. 


EEPORT. 

On  the  fifth  of  March,  of  last  year,  the  Senate  adopted 
the  following  resolution : 

"Whereas,  Elections  are  conducted  in  this  State  by  the 
use  of  paper  ballots  and  voting  machines;  and 

"Whereas,  It  is  thought  by  many  that  the  paper  ballots 
as  used  in  this  State,  could  be  improved,  and  a  better 
method  of  using  them  be  provided ;  and 

"Whereas,  It  is  alleged  that  the  voting  machines  do  not 
provide  a  safe  method  of  voting ;  and 

"Whereas,  It  is  wise  that  these  matters  be  thoroughly 
investigated  and  all  the  facts  be  brought  before  the  people 
to  the  end  that  the  very  best  method  of  voting  be  pro- 
vided in  this  State;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  a  committee,  consisting  of  three  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate,  be  appointed  by  the  President  of  the 
Senate  to  investigate  the  entire  subject  of  voting,  and  the 
different  methods  of  voting  and  the  different  methods  of 
conducting  elections,  and  to  report  at  the  next  session  of 
the  Legislature  such  recommendation  with  regard  to 
changes  in  the  election  laws  of  this  State  as  they  may 
deem  proper ;  further 

Resolved,  That  said  committee  be  authorized  to  employ 
counsel,  stenographers  and  such  other  assistants  as  may 


726  Appendix. 

be  necessary  for  such  investigation  and  report,  and  that 
all  bills  contracted  by  said  committee  be  paid  by  the 
Treasurer  of  the  State,  upon  the  warrant  of  the  Comptrol- 
ler, with  the  approval  of  the  Governor. 

And  on  the  12th  of  March,  the  President  of  the  Senate 
appointed  as  members  of  the  committee.  Senators  Wake- 
lee,  Lee  and  Hillery.  Since  that  time  your  committee  has 
been  making  the  investigation,  as  provided  for  in  the 
above  resolution. 

We  have  examined  the  ballot  laws  of  thirty -five  States, 
together  with  conditions  affecting  the  ballot  laws  of  our 
own  State,  and  beg  to  report  as  follows : 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  voting  machines  now  in 
use  should  be  continued,  with  the  following  changes : 

(1)  In  the  interest  of  independent  voting  we  suggest 
that  the  party-levers  be  abolished,  and  the  choice  of  each 
candidate  shall  be  indicated  by  the  moving  of  the  can- 
didates' pointers. 

(2)  There  should  not  be  two  methods  of  voting  in  the 
same  municipality,  and  the  municipalities  using  machines 
should  be  entirely  equipped. 

(3)  The  machines  should  be  located  in  the  more  popu- 
lous centers,  and  should,  when  once  located,  be  not  sub- 
ject to  removal.  There  should  also  be  provision  made  for 
fuller  and  more  ample  and  impartial  instruction  to 
voters,  and  a  broader  understanding  of  the  mechanism 
of  the  machine  on  the  part  of  these  officials  who  have  to 
do  with  their  use. 

We  also  find  that  the  paper  ballots  now  used  in  this 
State  are,  with  perhaps  a  single  exception,  the  most  un- 
safe, the  farthest  removed  from  the  secret  ballot,  and  the 
most  easily  manipulated  in  the  interests  of  fraudulent 
voting  of  any  paper  ballot  in  use  in  any  northern  State. 

In  our  examination  of  the  paper  ballots  in  use  in  the 
different  States,  we  have  endeavored  to  gather  therefrom 
the  best  features  of  each,  and  to  add  thereto  any  original 
ideas  which  seemed  to  be  in  the  interest  of  a  perfected 
ballot.  In  doing  this  we  have  first  considered  in  every 
instance  secrecy  and  protection  from  possibility  of  fraud 
or  bribery,  convenience  and  independent  voting.  In  this 
we  have  found  valuable  suggestions  in  the  ballot  laws  of 
Massachusetts,  New  York,  Minnesota,  Ohio,  Michigan, 
Montana,  and  the  result  of  our  investigations  is  to  recom- 
mend a  ballot  in  which  the  candidates  for  a  given  office 


Appendix.  727 

are  grouped  together  with  the  name  of  the  nominating 
body,  in  each  instance  affixed  to  that  of  the  candidate. 
These  official  groups  shall  be  arranged  on  the  ticket  hori- 
zontally, and  provision  made  for  the  voter  marking  his 
choice  for  each  individual  candidate,  as  is  the  case  in 
Massachusetts  and  Minnesota.  To  lessen  the  possibility 
of  the  voters  making  ineffective  their  ballot,  through 
improper  marking,  we  have  designated  an  official  marker 
to  be  used  in  place  of  the  customary  pencil  or  pen.  To  pre- 
vent the  possibility  of  the  voter  depositing  a  ballot  dif- 
ferent from  one  received  upon  going  into  the  polling 
booth  we  have  arranged  a  system  of  numbered  stubs  to 
be  affixed  to  the  ballots,  the  number  of  which  stubs  shall 
correspond  to  the  voter's  number  on  the  poll  book,  and 
provision  is  made  for  comparing  the  number  on  the  stub 
with  the  number  on  the  poll  book  at  the  time  the  ballot  is 
deposited,  after  which  the  stub  is  to  be  detached  and  de- 
posited in  a  separate  receptacle,  thereby  destroying  all 
possibility  of  further  identification  of  the  ballot  with  the 
name  of  the  voter. 

We  have  also  arranged  for  the  use  of  separate  ballots 
and  ballot-boxes  for  municipal  and  for  State  and  County 
elections.  The  municipal  ballot  to  be  known  as  the  "red" 
ballot,  and  the  State  and  County  ballot  to  be  known  as 
the  "white"  ballot. 

We  have  endeavored  to  develop  in  the  highest  degree 
possible,  safe  and  convenient  methods  of  voting.  In 
preparing  to  carry  out  these  changes,  we  found  that  it 
would  seriously  disarrange  our  present  far  too  much 
amended  election  law,  and  quite  recently  decided  that  the 
most  efficient  and  the  speediest  way  to  enact  our  ideas 
into  statute,  would  be  to  revise  the  whole  law  regulating 
elections,  and  in  drafting  such  a  bill  we  have  undertaken 
to  re-arrange  and  re-classify  the  provisions  of  the  present 
act  in  a  manner  which  we  believe  will  be  found  more 
comprehensive  and  more  easily  read  by  the  laymen,  by 
eliminating  merely  technical  legal  expressions.  We  have 
been  able  to  condense  the  205  pages  of  the  present  law  into 
a  bill  which  will  probably  not  require  over  110  to  115 
pages.  We  have  not  attempted  to  amend  in  any  material 
respect  the  provisions  of  the  present  law,  except  in  so  far 
as  it  affected  the  use  of  ballots,  but  have  endeavored  to 
so  arrange  it  that  it  may  serve  as  an  outline  and  basis 
for  the  easy  insertion  of  any  amendment  or  other  change, 


728  Appendix. 

either  in  the  general  elections  or  the  primary  act,  which 
the  Legislature  may  desire  to  make. 

We  further,  with  pleasure,  report  that  the  committee 
has  been  so  ably  assisted  by  the  Assistant  Secretary  of 
State,  that  we  have  incurred  no  expense  and  have  not 
availed  ourselves  of  the  provisions  in  the  resolution  for 
the  employment  of  assistants. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
Edmund  W.  Wakelee, 
Thomas  J.  Hilleey. 


State  of  New  Jersey. 
Department  of  State 

I,  David  S.  Cbatek,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey,  Do  Hereby  Certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a 
true  copy  of  Report  of  the  Committee  to  Investigate  Bal- 
lot Conditions,  to  the  Legislature  (Session  of  1908),  as  the 
same  is  taken  from  and  compared  with  the  original  now 
remaining  on  file  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  affixed  my  Official  Seal,  at  Trenton,  this  Twenty- 
eighth  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1913. 

(Signed)  David  S.  Crater, 
(seal)  Secretary  of  State. 


ANNUAL  REPORT. 

Camden,  N.  J. 

To  the  Honorable  John  Franklin  Fort,  Governor  of  New 
Jersey. 

_  Sir  :  In  presenting  the  third  annual  report  of  the  elec- 
tions division  of  the  Department  of  State,  in  which  is  in- 
cluded the  report  of  voting  machines,  as  provided  for  by 
Section  37  of  Chapter  215  of  the  Laws  of  1905,  I  shall 
attempt  to  review  the  work  done  by  the  division  during 
the  past  year. 

Special  Election. 

Beside  providing  for  the  work  of  the  general  elections 
this  year,  the  division  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  pro- 


Appendix.  729 

viding  for  the  special  election  held  September  14th,  to 
consider  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  and  also  of 
auditing  and  tabulating  the  returns  for  the  State  Board  of 
Canvassers.  In  preparing  for  this  election,  beside  at- 
tending to  the  placing  of  the  advertisements  as  provided 
for  in  the  Act  authorizing  the  publication  of  the  notices  of 
the  election,  the  division  was  charged  with  the  duty  of 
preparing  and  distributing  the  ballots,  the  precinct  re- 
turns, instructions  to  election  officers,  returns  for  county 
boards  of  canvassers,  and  copies  of  the  Act  providing  for 
the  special  election. 

The  ballots  for  this  election  were  121/2  inches  by  20^ 
inches  in  size,  and  to  secure  the  legal  thickness  it  was 
necessary  that  they  be  cut  from  paper  weighing  fifty 
pounds  to  the  ream. 

At  this  election,  as  well  as  at  the  general  election,  this 
year,  there  were  1,352  election  districts,  an  increase  of  77 
over  last  year.  The  total  number  of  ballots  necessary  for 
the  special  election  was  1,161,400,  weighing  approximately 
20  tons.  These  ballots,  under  the  Act,  were  apportioned 
to  the  respective  counties  in  the  proportion  of  250  ballots 
to  every  100  votes  cast  at  the  last  preceding  election  for 
General  Assembly,  the  distribution  of  which  required  the 
use  of  over  90  packing  cases  with  a  gross  weight  of  over 
500  pounds  average.  Besides  these  official  ballots,  the 
law  directed  that  the  Secretary  of  State  should  furnish 
to  any  person  who  might  desire  to  pay  for  the  same  bal- 
lots at  cost.  The  cost  of  these  ballots  was  found  to  be 
approximately  $3.00  per  thousand,  and  where  quantities 
less  than  1,000  were  purchased,  a  charge  of  50  cents  a 
hundred  was  made.  The  receipts  from  this  source 
amounted  to  $167.00.  There  were  two  precinct  returns, 
two  copies  of  the  Act  and  of  instructions  to  election  offi- 
cers furnished  each  election  district,  making  a  total  of 
2,704  of  each. 

Peimary  Elections. 

The  law  does  not  impose  on  the  Department  of  State 
any  duties  in  connection  with  the  primary  elections  be- 
yond the  printing  of  the  Acts  covering  such  elections, 
which  is  included  in  our  compilation  of  the  election  laws. 
This  year,  however,  because  of  the  manifest  importance 
of  the  new  legislation  regulating  the  selection  of  mem- 


730  Appendix. 

bers  of  county  committees  at  the  primary  election,  the 
department  prepared  and  distributed  1,000  copies  of  the 
primary  election  law  and  its  amendments. 


General  Elections. 

The  election  this  year  was  only  for  county  and  municipal 
officers,  but  the  increased  number  of  precincts  made  the 
volume  of  supplies  almost  equal  to  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion of  last  year,  there  being  39,383  pieces  this  year,  as 
against  41,410  last  year.  These  supplies  were  forwarded 
to  the  county  clerks  in  65  cases  averaging  approximately, 
400  pounds  each.  The  compilation  known  as  the  election 
laws,  contained  this  year  246  pages,  and  the  book  of  in- 
structions contained  92  pages.  Both  of  these  volumes, 
in  pursuance  with  the  practice  of  the  last  six  years,  are 
compiled  in  this  division,  and  not  by  special  counsel  as 
theretofore. 

There  being  no  State  Congressional  elections  this  year, 
there  was  no  State  Canvassing  Board  for  the  general 
election.  The  auditing  of  the  county  election  returns, 
however,  has  been  finished,  and  the  copy  is  in  the  hands 
of  the  printer. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  volume  of  election  returns  for 
this  year  will  contain  about  70  pages. 

Voting  Machines. 

There  were  in  use  at  the  last  election,  one  hundred 
and  ten  voting  machines,  located  as  follows: 

Voting  Machines. 

Bergen  County. 

Eiver  Side,  Borough  of. 
Demarest,  Borough  of. 

Burlington  County. 

Burlington,  City  of. 
First  ward. 
Second  ward.    Second  district. 


Appendix.  731 


Second  ward.    First  district. 
Third  ward. 
Fourth  ward. 
Burlington,  Township  of. 

Camden  County. 

Camden,  City  of. 

First  ward.    Sixth  district. 

First  ward.    Third  district. 

First  ward.    Fourth  district. 

First  ward.    Fifth  district. 

Fifth  ward.    Fourth  district. 

Seventh  ward.    First  district. 

Seventh  ward.    Fourth  district. 

Eighth  ward.    Fourth  district. 
Clementon,  Township  of. 

Cape  May  County. 

North  Wildwood,  Borough  of. 
Ocean  City,  City  of. 

First  ward. 

Second  ward. 

Essex  County. 
East  Orange. 

Second  ward.    First  district. 
Second  ward.    Second  district. 
Second  ward.    Third  district. 
Third  ward.    First  district. 
Third  ward.    Second  district. 
Fourth  ward.    First  district. 
Fourth  ward.    Second  district. 
Fourth  ward.    Third  district. 
Fifth  ward.    Fourth  district. 

Hudson  County. 

Bayonne,  City  of. 

First  ward.    First  district. 
First  ward.    Second  district. 
First  ward.    Third  district. 
First  ward.    Fourth  district. 


732  Appendix. 

Second  ward.    First  district. 
Second  ward.    Second  district. 
Second  ward.    Third  district. 
Second  ward.    Fourth  district. 
Second  ward.    Fifth  district. 
Third  ward.    First  district. 
Third  ward.    Second  district. 
Third  ward.    Third  district. 
Third  ward.    Fourth  district. 
Third  ward.    Fifth  district. 
Fourth  ward.    First  district. 
Fourth  ward.    Second  district. 
Fourth  ward.    Third  district. 
Fifth  ward.     First  district. 
Fifth  ward.    Second  district. 
Fifth  ward.     Third  district. 

Mercer  County. 

West  Windsor,  Township  of  (Dutch  Neck). 
Princeton,  Borough  of.  First  district. 
Second  district. 

Middlesex  County. 

Eoosevelt,  Borough  of. 

Woodbridge,  Township  of.  First  district. 

Monmouth  County. 
Asbury  Park. 

First  ward.    First  district. 

First  ward.    Second  ward. 

Second  ward.    First  district. 
Neptune  City,  Borough  of. 

Passaic  County. 

Paterson,  City  of. 

First  ward.    First  district. 
First  ward.    Second  district. 
First  ward.    Third  district. 
First  ward.     Fourth  district. 
Second  ward.     First  district. 
Second  ward.     Second  district. 
Second  ward.    Third  district. 


Appendix.  T.V.I 


Second  ward.     Fourth  district. 
Second  ward.     Fifth  district. 
Third  ward.     First  district. 
Fourth  ward.     First  district. 
Fourth  ward.     Second  district. 
Fourth  ward.    Fourth  district. 
Fourth  ward.     Fifth  district. 
Fifth  ward.     First  district. 
Fifth  ward.     Second  district. 
Fifth  ward.     Third  district. 
Fifth  ward.     Fourth  district. 
Sixth  ward.     First  district. 
Sixth  ward.     Second  district. 
Seventh  ward.    First  district. 
Eighth  ward.     First  district. 
Eighth  ward.     Second  district. 
Eighth  ward.     Third  district. 
Ninth  ward.     First  district. 
Ninth  ward.     Second  district. 
Ninth  ward.     Third  district. 
Ninth  ward.     Fourth  district. 
Tenth  ward.     First  district. 
Tenth  ward.     Second  district. 
Eleventh  ward.   'First  district. 
Eleventh  ward.     Second  district. 
Eleventh  ward.     Third  district. 
Haledon,  Borough  of. 

Passaic,  City  of. 

Second  ward.     First  district. 
Third  ward.     First  district. 
Third  ward.     Second  district. 
Fourth  ward.     Second  district. 
Fourth  ward.     Fourth  district. 

Salem  County. 

Woodstown,  Borough  of. 
Mannington,  Township  of. 

Sussex  County. 
Sussex,  Borough  of. 


734  Appendix. 

Union  County. 
Plainfield,  City  of. 

First  M^ard.     First  district. 
Second  ward.     First  district. 
Third  ward.     First  district. 
Fourth  ward.     First  district. 

Elizabeth,  City  of. 

Eleventh  ward.     Second  district. 

Roselle,  Borough  of. 

Cranford,  Borough  of,  Second  district. 

All  these  machines  were  duly  inspected,  in  pursuance 
Avith  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  before  the  election, 
and  were  found  to  be  in  perfect  order,  except  four  ma- 
chines, where  rough  usage  probably  in  packing  had  re- 
sulted in  producing  temporary  defects,  which  were 
promptly  repaired  by  a  representative  of  the  voting  ma- 
chine company,  without  cost  to  the  State,  except  for 
traveling  expenses  of  the  machinist. 

On  election  morning  the  office  received  the  report  that 
the  voters  were  unable  to  move  the  party-lever  of  the 
voting  machine  located  in  the  first  election  district  of  the 
First  ward  of  Asbury  Park.  An  inspector  was  immedi- 
ately sent  to  examine  the  machine,  but  before  he  arrived 
the  assistant  clerk  of  the  town  had  found  the  cause  of  the 
trouble.  A  grouping  pin  had  been  improperly  placed  in 
the  machine  in  such  a  manner  as  to  prevent  the  regis- 
tering of  votes.  Upon  the  proper  adjustment  of  this 
grouping  pin,  the  machine  proceeded  to  work  properly. 

After  the  election  it  was  reported  that  the  machine  used 
in  the  fourth  district  of  the  fourth  ward  of  Passaic  had 
falsely  registered  the  vote  on  column  eleven  of  the  ma- 
chine. This  column  was  one  of  seven  used  for  electing 
Freeholder.  On  opening  the  machine,  column  11  showed 
a  total  of  six  hundred  and  fifty  votes,  whereas  on  the 
other  columns  for  Freeholder  there  had  been  an  average 
of  two  hundred  and  seventy-three  votes  cast.  At  the  ex- 
piration of  the  thirty  days  provided  in  the  statute  for 
keeping  the  machine  closed,  an  investigation  was  made. 
This  investigation  developed  the  fact  that  the  discrepancy 
was  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  local  inspector,  while  pre- 
paring the  machine  for  the  1909  election,  had  failed  to 
reset  column  eleven,  consequently,  not  only  the  1908  vote, 


Appendix.  735 

but  the  1909  vote,  together  with  the  number  of  times  the 
State  inspector  had  operated  the  machine  in  his  inspec- 
tion and  adjustment  for  election,  showed  on  the  final  re- 
sult. The  poll  books  for  1908  and  1909  showed  a  regis- 
tration of  341  and  275  votes,  respectively  making  a  total 
of  616.  Our  records  show  that  the  inspector  had  operated 
this  machine  forty-three  times  in  his  inspection  and  ad- 
justment for  elections.  This  shows  that  the  machine  had 
been  operated  659  times.  This  result  shows  that  on 
column  eleven,  for  the  two  elections,  nine  votes  less  than 
the  total  registration  on  the  poll  book  (616)  were  cast. 
The  local  inspector  was  convinced  that  he  had  overlooked 
the  resetting  of  column  eleven. 

Since  the  last  general  election  there  have  been  filed  re- 
turns of  thirty-five  special  elections  under  the  provisions 
of  Chapter  163  of  the  Act  of  1908.  This  is  the  act  which 
provides  for  a  referendum  election  to  consider  whether 
the  voting  machines  located  in  the  election  districts  shall 
be  used  or  not.  In  two  of  these  elections  the  result  was 
to  direct  the  continuation  of  the  use  of  the  voting  machine 
and  in  thirty -three  to  direct  its  discontinuance. 

General  Duties. 

The  correspondence  connected  with  this  division  has 
greatly  increased  even  over  the  volume  of  the  preceding 
year.  The  division  seems  to  be  called  upon  more  and 
more  for  information  and  advice.  In  all  such  instance, 
while  we  endeavor  to  make  it  understood  that  the  in- 
formation and  ad\ace  is  unofficial,  yet  we  have  endeavored 
to  the  best  of  our  ability  to  serve  all  those  who  applied 
to  us.  In  fact,  it  has  been  our  effort  to  make  this  divi- 
sion of  the  department,  as  indeed  we  have  striven  to  make 
all  divisions,  of  the  greatest  possible  service  to  those 
who  may  be  interested.  Our  appropriation  is,  of  course, 
limited,  but  we  have  endeavored  to  obtain  from  it  a  maxi- 
mum efficiency.  We  called  attention  in  last  year's  report 
to  the  fact  that  from  the  information  and  services  fur- 
nished by  this  division,  the  Senant  Committee  appointed 
in  1907  to  consider  the  subject  of  elections  was  able  to 
report  a  complete  revision  of  the  election  laws  without 
expense  to  the  State,  and  all  information  in  possession 
of  the  division  is  always  available  to  those  who  may  de- 
sire it. 


736  Appendix. 

We  have  endeavored,  as  during  the  previous  years,  to 
compile  legislative  and  other  information  from  other 
States,  as  well  as  from  New  Jersey,  on  all  subjects  per- 
taining to  elections. 

From  this  it  will  be  found  that  the  volume  of  legisla- 
tion and  popular  discussion  of  the  subject  have  not  abated 
since  our  last  report,  and  in  many  of  the  States  progress- 
ive measures  looking  to  more  efficient  safeguards  of  the 
ballot  have  been  adopted,  not  only  in  the  conduct  of  gen- 
eral elections,  but  in  the  regulation  of  primaries  and  of 
the  political  party  government  as  well.  Some  of  these, 
of  course,  are  experimental,  and  some  are  founded  on  the 
experience  of  other  States.  Perhaps  the  most  important 
of  the  latter  class  is  the  step  forward  taken  by  Connecti- 
cut, which  abandoned  the  ranks  of  the  small  number  of 
States  which  still  adhere  to  the  use  of  ballots  outside  the . 
polling  booth,  and  adopted  a  ballot  with  regulations  very 
similar  to  those  in  use  in  New  York  State,  the  new  law  to 
take  effect  the  first  of  January,  1910.  This  leaves  only 
Georgia,  New  Jersey,  New  Mexico,  North  Carolina,  and 
South  Carolina  using  official  ballots  outside  the  polling 
booth.  Many  cities  in  Connecticut  have  also  adopted  the 
use  of  the  voting  machines.  In  such  cases  they  have 
adopted  the  very  sane  and  rational  rule  of  leaving  the 
use  of  voting  machines  to  be  determined  entirely  by  the 
municipalities,  and  to  be  purchased  and  owned  by  them. 
Where  voting  machines  are  adopted  by  any  municipality 
in  that  State,  their  use  becomes  universal  within  its  ter- 
ritory. 

Several  States  have  also  taken  advanced  positions  in 
primary  reform,  and  in  the  official  regulation  of  party 
organization.  In  this  latter  respect  New  Jersey,  by  legis- 
lative enactment  of  last  winter,  opened  the  way  for  a 
higher  standard  of  party  politics  by  providing  for  limited 
regulation  of  such  organizations  by  State  law. 
EespectfuUy  submitted, 

S.  D.  Dickinson, 
Secretary  of  State. 


Appendix.  737 

State  op  New  Jebsey. 
Department  of  State. 

I,  David  S.  Ceatee,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey,  Do  Hereby  Certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a 
true  copy  of  Annual  Report  of  the  Election  Division  of 
the  Department  of  State,  including  the  Report  on  Voting 
Machines,  as  the  same  is  taken  from  and  compared  with 
the  original  now  remaining  on  file  in  my  office. 

In  testimony  wheeeof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  affixed  my  Official  Seal,  at  Trenton,  this  Twenty- 
eighth  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1913. 

(Signed)  David  S.  Ceateb, 
(sEAii)  Secretary  of  State. 


738  Appendix. 


Office  of  the  Boaed  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  Illinois,  City  Hall. 

Specifications  for  the  Furnishing  of  Voting  Machines. 


Sealed  bids  are  invited  by  the  board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois,  for  the  pro- 
posed purchase  of  voting  machines  by  said  Board  in 
accordance  with  and  subject  to  the  requirements  of  the 
following  specifications: 

1st.  All  persons,  firms  or  corporations  filing  bids  as 
above  requested  will  be  required  to  specify  in  bid : 

(A)  That  the  bidder  has  placed  on  exhibition  in  the 
office  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  Illinois,  a  voting  machine  that  in  every  way 
meets  the  requirements  of  the  Illinois  Election  Laws  and 
the  Illinois  Voting  Machine  Law,  and  is  in  every  par- 
ticular the  same  as  offered  and  specified  in  said  bid ;  ex- 
cept, that  for  the  purposes  of  exhibition  the  number  of 
voting  keys  on  such  exhibited  machine  may  be  less  than 
seventy  (70),  and  the  number  of  party  columns  may  be 
less  than  nine  (9),  for  such  exhibition  purposes  only. 

(B)  That  the  machine  offered  and  specified  in  bid 
shall  in  every  way  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Illinois 
Election  Laws  and  the  Illinois  Voting  Machine  Law,  and 
shall  contain  at  least  nine  (9)  party  columns  with  at  least 
seventy  (70)  voting  keys  or  devices  for  each  column 
such  as  may  be  used  on  said  machine  for  voting  for  at 
least  seventy  (70)  candidates  in  each  column;  also  suffi- 
cient keys  or  devices  for  voting  upon  at  least  twelve  (12) 
propositions  at  one  and  the  same  election. 

(C)  A  price  to  be  charged  F.  0.  B.  Chicago  for  the 
machine  described  in  sub-section  B. 

(D)  That  the  type  of  machine  placed  on  exhibition 
has  been  examined  and  approved  by  the  voting  machine 
commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

(E)  That  the  machine  offered  and  specified  in  bid 
shall  be  one  approved  and  certified  to  by  the  Voting  Ma- 
chine Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

(F)  That  the  machine  so  offered  and  specified  has 
been  set,  equipped  and  arranged  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements  of  these  specifications. 


Appendix.  739 

(G)  That  the  bidder  agrees  to  comply  fully  and  in 
a  manner  to  facilitate  any  procedure  of  the  said  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  relating  to  the  examination, 
the  manipulation  or  the  handling  in  any  way  of  the  ma- 
chine exhibited  by  said  bidder,  so  far  as  the  Board  may 
deem  tit  for  its  information  and  guidance. 

(H)  That  the  machine  offered  and  specified  in  bid 
is  as  fully  and  completely  equipped  with  all  appurte- 
nances relating  to  its  use  at  election  as  if  the  same  was 
actually  to  be  used  at  an  election,  showing  the  ballot 
(candidates  and  propositions)  as  furnished  by  this  Board. 

(I)  That  the  price  named  in  bid  shall  include  a  box 
or  case  for  enclosing  each  machine  that  may  be  pur- 
chased, for  use  in  handling,  storing  or  transporting  the 
same ;  the  box  or  case  so  specified  to  be  offered  and  ex- 
hibited at  the  same  time  the  machine  is  exhibited. 

(J)  The  conditions,  terms,  payments,  guarantees,  etc., 
explicitly  and  in  full  detail,  upon  whicli  such  machine  is 
offered;  such  specifications  as  to  payment  to  be  particu- 
larized as  to  the  method,  time,  amount,  interest,  etc. 

(K)  The  number  of  machines  that  are  to  be  furnished, 
delivered  and  equipped  in  every  particular  for  use  at 
elections  shall  be  as  follows  and  in  the  following  install- 
ments : 

1st  Installment:  Not  to  exceed  two  hundred  (200)  at 
or  before  the  expiration  of  four  (4)  months  after  the 
date  of  the  signing  of  the  contract. 

2nd  Installment:  Not  to  exceed  three  hundred  (300) 
more  at  or  before  the  expiration  of  nine  (9)  months  after 
the  date  of  the  signing  of  the  contract. 

3rd  Installment :  Not  to  exceed  five  hundred  (500)  more 
at  or  before  the  expiration  of  sixteen  (16)  months  after 
the  date  of  the  signing  of  the  contract. 

Balance  and  Final  Installment:  At  or  before  the  ex- 
piration of  twenty-one  (21)  months  after  the  date  of  the 
signing  of  the  contract. 

(L)  The  weight,  width,  length  and  height  of  machine 
offered  and  specified  as  equipped  for  voting;  also  the 
same  data  for  box  or  case  with  said  machine  enclosed 
therein. 

(M)  The  consent  of  bidder  that  the  machine  exhibited 
shall  be  delivered  over  to  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners at  its  discretion  after  said  machine  has  been 
delivered  as  required  herein,  and  prior  to  the  award 
of  bid,  for  such  time  as  said  Board  may  deem  proper, 


740  Appendix. 

for  not  exceeding-  fifteen  days,  unless  with  bidder's  fur- 
ther consent,  for  the  purpose  of  permitting  the  machine 
to  be  examined  by  said  Board,  or  its  agents,  experts  or 
employes. 

(N)  That  the  bidder  whose  machine  is  selected  as  the 
one  to  be  purchased  shall  be  required,  after  such  favor- 
able action  of  the  Board  is  known  and  before  the  con- 
tract is  entered  into,  to  'submit,  deliver  and  furnish  to 
the  Board  a  sample  of  the  machine  actually  offered  for 
sale,  containing  not  less  than  nine  (9)  party  columns 
and  seventy  (70)  voting  keys,  for  final  examination  by 
the  Board  to  determine  whether  the  machine  offered  for 
sale  will  fulfill  all  the  tests  and  meet  all  the  claims  and 
requirements  of  the  same  type  of  machine  which  was  on 
exhibition  and  which  was  favorably  acted  upon. 

(0)  Bidder's  consent  that,  for  the  purpose  of  aiding 
in  determining  the  relative  advantages  claimed  for  the 
machine  offered  and  specified  in  bid,  the  machine  so 
offered  by  said  bidder  may  be  examined,  under  the  super- 
vision of  this  Board  and  for  its  information,  by  any  other 
bidder  or  representative  thereof,  or  by  any  citizen  or 
any  representative  of  any  civic  body. 

(P)  The  different  states  in  which  machine  offered 
and  specified  in  bid  has  been  examined  and  approved  by 
the  Official  Board  or  officer  des,'gnated  by  the  law  to  do 
the  same ;  also  the  official  title  of  the  said  Board  or  officer, 
and  where  located. 

(Q)  Of  what  metal  or  material  machine  is  con- 
structed; this  to  include  frame,  counters,  bars,  pointers, 
and  any  and  all  parts  relating  to  the  machine  in  its 
entirety,  and  the  finish  of  same;  also  whether  machine 
is  painted  or  enameled. 

(R)  Any  method,  form  or  device,  used  for  instructing 
voters,  and  whether  or  not  same  is  furnished  with  each 
machine  at  the  price  named  in  bid  for  said  machine; 
or,  if  an  additional  price  is  to  be  made  for  said  method, 
form,  or  device,  and,  if  so,  what  price. 

Note:  While  the  bidder  is  permitted  by  the  specifica- 
tions to  exhibit  a  machine  of  less  than  nine  (9)  party 
columns  and  seventy  (70)  voting  keys  or  devices  for 
each  column,  it  is  preferred  that  a  machine  of  at  least 
nine  (9)  party  columns  and  having  seventy  (70)  voting 
keys  or  devices  for  each  column,  which  is  to  be  bought, 
should  be  exhibited. 
2nd.  At  the  time  of  opening  the  bids  filed  as  requested 


Appendix.  741 

herein,  and  during  their  consideration  and  until  the 
same  are  disposed  of,  bidder  will  be  required  to  have 
present  at  least  one  accredited  and  authorized  agent,  who 
shall  also  be  competent  to  operate  and  explain  in  the 
fullest  detail,  the  operation,  manipulation,  arrangement 
and  adjustment  of  the  machine  offered  and  specified  in 
bid. 

3rd.  All  reading  matter  required  to  appear  on  ma- 
chines, so  far  as  the  same  relates  to  instructions,  names 
of  candidates,  propositions,  etc.,  to  be  in  printed  form; 
no  written  or  typewritten  matter  to  be  used  for  this  pur- 
pose. 

4th.  All  machines  offered  and  specified  in  bids  are 
required  to  meet  all  conditions  in  every  detail  as  to  con- 
struction, operation,  guarantees,  etc.,  and  all  require- 
ments of  the  Voting  Machine  Law  of  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois ;  and  to  permit  of  voting  for  candidates  and  propo- 
sitions upon  said  machines  m  accordance  with  the  re- 
quirements of  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

5th.  Copies  of  the  Voting  Machine  and  Election  Laws 
shall  be  furnished  by  this  Board  at  this  office,  and  these 
laws  are  hereby  made  a  binding  part  of  these  specifica- 
tions. 

6th.  Bids  are  requested  for  the  furnishing  of  voting 
machines  to  the  number  of  twelve  hundred  (1,200) ;  pro- 
vided, however,  that  this  Board  shall  have  the  right,  if 
it  deems  advisable,  to  contract  for  the  purchase  of  any 
less  number  than  twelve  hundred  (1,200),  or  any  por- 
tion of  said  number,  upon  the  same  proportionate  terms. 
It  is  provided  further,  that  after  the  purchase  and  de- 
livery of  the  final  installment  named  in  Section  K,  this 
Board,  if  it  so  desires,  may  purchase,  and  the  bidder 
agrees  to  furnish,  additional  machines  at  no  higher  price 
than  the  price  named  in  the  original  contract. 

7th.  Bidders  will  be  required  to  display  on  machines 
exhibited  and  specified  in  bid  a  ballot  (candidates  and 
propositions)  voted  in  Congressional  and  Senatorial  dis- 
tricts at  elections  in  the  City  of  Chicago;  the  ballot  so 
displayed  to  show  the  same  relative  order  of  party  appel- 
lations and  columns,  also  propositions,  as  appears  upon 
sample  ballot  furnished  by  this  Board;  such  columns, 
however,  may  be  vertical  or  horizontal,  or  whatever  form 
the  bidder  may  deem  advisable.  The  arrangement  of 
offices  and  candidates  on  the  ballot  so  displayed  to  be 
as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  same  order  as  that  appearing 


742  Appendix. 

upon  the  sample  ballot  furnished.  Provided,  however, 
that  for  the  office  of  Representative  in  the  General  As- 
sembly the  machine  exhibited  shall  permit  the  voter  to 
cast: 

Three  votes  for  one  candidate. 

One  and  one-half  votes  for  each  of  two  candidates. 

One  vote  for  each  of  three  candidates. 

Two  votes  for  one  candidate  and  one  for  another  can- 
didate. 

8th.  The  machine  to  be  exhibited  will  be  required  to 
be  delivered  to  the  offices  of  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners ready  and  equipped  in  every  particular  to 
vote  the  sample  ballot  of  this  Board,  (candidates  and 
propositions)  displayed  thereon  at  or  before  the  date 
upon  which  the  bids  are  required  to  be  filed  with  this 
Board. 

9th.  Each  bidder  will  be  required  to  display  on  the 
machine  as  many  different  tickets,  showing  offices,  can- 
didates and  propositions  for  as  many  different  elections 
already  held  or  to  be  held  as  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners may  direct;  this  for  the  purpose  of  demon- 
strating the  adaptability  of  the  machine  to  the  require- 
ments for  voting  as  necessitated  by  the  several  elections 
required  to  be  conducted  by  said  Board. 

10th.  Machines  exhibited  in  compliance  with  these 
specifications  will  be  at  the  responsibility  and  risk  of 
the  owner  during  the  time  they  are  on  such  exhibition, 
and  free  of  any  expense  whatever  to  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners. 

11th.  Bidders  will  be  required,  at  or  before  the  time 
of  filing  bids  as  set  forth  herein,  to  furnish  to  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  for  the  machine  offered  and 
specified  in  bid,  nine  printed,  separate  and  complete 
copies  of  the  following,  to  wit: 

Instructions  to  voters. 

Instructions  for  setting  up  machine  and  taking  down 
the  same. 

Instructions  for  preparing  machine  for  voting  at  elec- 
tions. 

Instructions  for  grouping  machine. 

Instructions  for  restricted  voters. 
.  Instructions  for  locking  or  securing  counters,  etc.,  and 
safeguarding  them  during  the  progress  of  election. 

Instructions  for  locking  machine  against  operation 
after  close  of  polls. 


Appendix.  743 

Instructions  for  taking  oif  vote  at  the  close  of  election. 

Instructions  for  boxing  machine  for  storage  and  trans- 
porting. 

Note:  Any  matter  or  instructions  additional  to  the 
above  nine  may  be  added  as  in  the  discretion  of  the 
bidder  may  be  deemed  pertinent  or  explanatory  relating 
to  the  handling,  operation  or  merits  of  the  machine.  Such 
additional  matter  is  to  omit  anything  in  the  nature  of 
advertising  or  argument.  All  of  the  nine  copies  of  the 
required  instructions  are  to  be  filed  flat,  and  each  copy 
and  set  of  nine  to  be  marked  so  as  to  be  readily  identified. 
It  is  desired  that  particular  care  and  attention  be  given 
to  the  filing  of  these  documents,  etc.,  as  their  usefulness 
will  depend  largely  on  the  convenience  of  their  arrange- 
ment and  identification  marks.  It  is  especially  requested 
that  none  be  filed  in  roll  shape,  but  in  the  manner 
designated. 

Also:  Five  separate,  full  and  complete  plans,  photo- 
graphs, prints  or  blue  prints,  showing  drawings  of  every 
part  or  piece  of  machine  specified  in  bid,  and  method  of 
assembling  same. 

Also :  Five  separate  photographs,  mounted  on  heavy 
ledger  paper,  of  machine,  showing  same  set  up  and  ready 
for  voting. 

Note :  Size  of  paper  on  which  photographs  are  to  be 
mounted  to  be  12x15  inches.  Each  of  the  drawings  and 
photographs  to  be  filed  flat.  Mark  each  plan,  photo- 
graph, print,  etc.,  and  set  of  same,  sufficiently  to  make 
it  readily  identified. 

12th.  Each  bid  is  required  to  be  accompanied  by  a  cer- 
tified check  in  the  sum  of  five  per  cent.  (5%)  of  the  bid, 
payable  at  a  bank,  (State  or  National)  located  in  the 
City  of  Chicago,  Illinois,  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Illi- 
nois, as  an  evidence  of  the  good  faith  of  said  bidder, 
guaranteeing  the  performance  of  any  provisions  set  forth 
in  said  bid.  Said  check  to  be  returned  to  said  bidder 
upon  the  announcement  of  the  award  of  contract  by  the 
said  Board  of  Election  Commissioners.  Provided,  that 
said  check  shall  not  be  returned  to  the  successful  bidder 
until  the  contract  has  been  executed  and  the  bonds  ap- 
proved; and  provided,  further,  that  said  check  shall  be 
forfeited  in  the  event  that  the  successful  bidder  fails  to 
enter  into  and  sign  the  contract  awarded  to  him,  and 
fails  to  furnish  the  required  bond. 


744  Appendix. 

13th.  The  person,  firm  or  corporation  to  whom  award 
of  bid  is  made  will  be  required  to  enter  into  a  contract 
for  the  furnishing  of  any  machine  or  machines  pur- 
chased by  said  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  and  to  execute  to  said  board,  subject 
to  its  approval,  a  surety  company  or  guaranty  company 
bond  in  the  sum  of  at  least  two  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand dollars  ($250,000)  guaranteeing  the  faithful  per- 
formance of  such  contract ;  also  guaranteeing  said  board 
to  keep  said  machines  in  good  working  order  for  five 
(5)  years  from  the  respective  dates  of  purchase  thereof 
without  additional  cost  to  said  board,  as  provided  by  the 
Illinois  Voting  Machine  Act  in  force  July  1,  1903 ;  also 
guaranteeing  said  board  against  any  costs  or  loss  of 
any  kind,  including  attorneys'  and  experts'  fees,  occa- 
sioned by  any  litigation  relating  to  any  infringement 
of  any  patents,  device  or  mechanism  used  on  or  about 
the  machines  purchased  by  said  board;  also  guaran- 
teeing to  defend  said  Board  against  any  action  or  actions 
at  law  that  may  be  brought  against  it  by  reason  of  any 
infringement  of  patent  or  patents  used  on  or  about  said 
machines,  upon  notice  from  said  Board  of  the  com- 
mencement of  any  such  action  or  actions;  and  gxiaran- 
teeing  said  board  against  all  damages  and  costs  that  may 
be  occasioned  by  said  action  or  actions. 

14th.  The  use  and  benefits  of  all  future  patents  and 
improvements  applicable  to  and  an  advancement  upon 
the  process  and  functions  of  this  machine  to  inure  to  this 
board  without  additional  costs,  except  a  reasonable  price 
for  the  labor  and  materials  employed  in  such  improved 
device. 

15th.  Bids  are  required  to  be  filed  with  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois, 
at  its  office,  at  or  before  the  hour  of  ten  o'clock  a.  m., 
Monday,  May  22d,  1911. 

16th.  Bids  are  required  to  be  submitted  upon  forms 
prepared  and  supplied  by  this  Board.  Said  forms  may 
be  had  upon  application  on  or  after  the  date  of  the  pub- 
lication of  notice  for  sealed  proposals  for  said  voting 
machines. 

17th.  Bids  are  required  to  be  enclosed  in  sealed  en- 
velopes addressed  to  the  "Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners of  the  City  of  Chicago,  City  Hall,  Chicago,  Illi- 
nois."  And  on  the  face  of  said  envelope  there  shall  be 
entered  the  name  and  address  of  the  person,  firm  or  cor- 


Appendix.  745 

poration  submitting  said  bid,  and  the  endorsement,  "bid 
for  voting  machines."  Such  envelope  will  be  furnished 
at  the  time  application  is  made  for  form  for  submitting 
bid. 

18th.  A  public  exhibition  of  all  machines  of  bidders 
will  be  conducted  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners at  such  times  prior  to  the  award  of  bid  as  said 
board  may  determine.  At  all  such  exhibitions  the  bid- 
der will  be  required  to  have  present  a  person  competent 
to  demonstrate  in  every  particular  the  operation  of  the 
machine  offered  in  bid. 

19th.  The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  reserves 
the  right  to  make  any  requirements  in  addition  to  those 
contained  in  specifications  herewith,  as  may,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  said  Board,  be  deemed  advisable  for  its  informa- 
tion and  guidance  in  the  proposed  purchasing  of  voting 
machines  asked  for  herein. 

20th.  The  insertion  herein  or  in  specifications  for  said 
machines  of  any  explicit  or  express  requirements  or  con- 
ditions shall  in  no  wise  be  considered  as  a  waiver  of  any 
of  the  statutory  requirements  laid  down  in  the  statute 
of  Illinois  concerning  voting  machines,  or  any  amend- ' 
ment  thereof,  or  of  the  election  laws  of  this  state. 

21st.  The  said  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  re- 
serve the  right  to  reject  any  or  all  bids. 

(Signed)  Chaeles  H.  Kellebmann, 

Chairman. 
Anthony  Czaknecki, 

Secretary. 
Howard  S.  Taylor, 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of 
the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois. 
William  H.  Stuart, 

Chief  Cleric. 
Chicago,  Illinois,  April  27,  1911. 


746  Appendix. 


Certificate  of  Incoeporation  of  Empire  Voting  Machine 

Company. 

"We,  the  undersigned,  all  being  persons  of  full  age, 
and  at  least  two-thirds  being  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
and  at  least  one  of  us  a  resident  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
desiring  to  form  a  stock  corporation,  pursuant  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Business  Corporations  Law  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  do  hereby  make,  sign,  acknowledge  and 
file  this  certificate  for  that  purpose,  as  follows: 

I.  The  name  of  the  proposed  corporation  is  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company. 

II.  The  purposes  for  Avhich  it  is  to  be  formed  are, 
to  manufacture,  purchase,  sell  and  deal  in,  voting  ma- 
chines, and  other  machinery  and  tools  of  all  kinds;  to 
buy,  or  otherwise  acquire,  any  inventions,  improvements 
and  processes,  and  any  Letters  Patent,  licenses  and 
trade  marks,  of  the  United  States,  relating  to,  or  useful 
in  connection  with,  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  such 
voting  machines  and  other  machinery  and  tools,  and  to 
use,  exercise,  develop  and  grant  licenses,  in  respect  to 
such  inventions,  improvements  and  Letters  Patent;  to 
purchase,  acquire,  hold  and  dispose  of  the  stocks,  bonds 
and  other  evidences  of  indebtedness  of  any  corporation, 
domestic  or  foreign,  and  issue  in  exchange  therefor  its 
stocks,  bonds  or  other  obligations  and  to  do  all  and 
everything  necessary,  suitable  and  proper  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  any  of  the  purposes,  the  attainment  of 
any  of  the  objects,  or  the  furtherance  of  any  of  the 
powers  hereinbefore  set  forth,  either  alone  or  in  asso- 
ciation with  other  corporations,  firms  or  individuals, 
and  to  do  every  other  act  or  acts,  thing  or  things,  inci- 
dental or  appurtenant  to,  or  growing  out  of,  or  connected 
with  the  aforesaid  business  or  powers,  or  any  part  or 
parts  thereof,  provided  the  same  be  not  inconsistent  with 
the  laws  under  which  this  corporation  is  organized. 

III.  The  amount  of  the  capital  stock  is  Two  Million 
Dollars,  ($2,000,000.00). 

IV.  The  number  of  shares  of  which  the  capital  stock 
shall  consist  is  twenty  thousand  (20,000)  of  the  par  value 
of  one  hundred  dollars  ($100.00)  each,  and  the  amount 
of  capital  with  which  the  corporation  will  begin  busi- 
ness is  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  ($100,000.00). 


Appendix.  747 

V.  Its  principal  business  office  is  to  be  located  in  the 
City  of  Eochester,  County  of  Monroe  and  State  of  New 
York. 

VI.  Its  duration  is  to  be  perpetual. 

VII.  The  number  of  its  Directors  is  to  be  seven  (7), 
and  it  is  hereby  provided,  pursuant  to  law,  that  directors 
are  not  required  to  be  stockholders. 

VIII.  The  names  and  post-office  addresses  of  the  Di- 
rectors for  the  first  year  are  as  follows: 

Names.  Post-office  Addresses. 

Gustav  Erbe,  Rochester,  New  York. 
Carl  F.  Lomb,  Rochester,  New  York. 
Daniel  B.  Piatt,  Rochester,  New  York. 
John  Condon,  Chicago,  Illinois. 
Adam  Andrew,  San  Francisco,  California. 
Ernest  H.  Tripp,  Indianapolis,  Indiana. 
John  B.  Cockrum,  Indianapolis,  Indiana. 

IX.  The  names  and  post-office  addresses  of  the  sub- 
scribers to  the  certificate,  and  a  statement  of  the  num- 
ber of  shares  which  each  agrees  to  take  in  the  corpora- 
tion, are  as  follows: 

Names.  Post-office  Addresses.  No.  of  Shares. 

Carl  F.  Lomb,  Rochester,  New  York 100 

Daniel  B.  Piatt,  Rochester,  New  York 100 

Adam  Andrew,  San  Francisco,  California 100 

Ernest  H.  Tripp,  Indianapolis,  Indiana 100 

In  Witness  Whereof,  we  have  made,  signed,  acknowl- 
edged and  filed  this  certificate  in  duplicate. 
Dated,  this  25th  day  of  March,  1908. 

Charles  F.  Lomb, 
Daniel  B.  Platt, 
Adam  Andrew, 
Ernest  H.  Tkipp. 


State  of  New  York,"^ 
County  of  Monroe,    ^ss. 
City  of  Rochester,    J 

On  this  25th  day  of  March,  1908,  before  me,  personally 
came  Carl  F.  Lomb,  Daniel  B.  Platt,  Adam  Andrew  and 
Ernest  H.  Tripp,  to  me  personally  known  and  known  to 
be  the  persons  described  in  and  who  made  and  signed  the 
foregoing  certificate  and  severally  duly  acknowledged  to 


748  Appendix. 

me  that  they  had  made,  signed  and  executed  the  same  for 
the  uses  and  purposes  therein  set  forth. 

G.    P.    WOLCOTT, 

Notary  Public. 

(Endorsed)  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company.  Dated,  March  25th,  1908. 
Tax  for  privilege  of  organization  of  this  Corporation. 
$1000.  Under  Section  448,  Laws  of  1901.  Paid  to  State 
Treasurer  before  filing.  State  of  New  York.  Office  of 
Secretary  of  State.  Filed  and  recorded  Mar.  26,  1908. 
John  S.  Whalen,  Secretary  of  State. 

State  of  New  York,  ) 

Office  of  the  Secretahy  of  State.   I  ^^' 

I  have  compared  the  preceding  with  the  original  Certifi- 
cate of  Incorporation  of  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany, filed  and  recorded  in  this  office  on  the  26th  day  of 
March,  1908,  and  do  hereby  certify  the  same  to  be  a  cor- 
rect transcript  therefrom  and  of  the  whole  of  said  orig- 
inal. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  seal  of  office  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  at  the  City  of  Albany,  this  tenth  day  of 
September,  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirteen. 

Jose  S.  ProcEox, 
(seal)  Second  Deputy  Secretary  of  State. 

Empire  Voting  Machine  Company.   Certificate  of  Pay- 
ment OF  One-Half  of  Capital  Stock. 

We,  the  undersigned,  being  a  majority  of  the  Directors 
of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  a  corporation 
formed  under  the  provisions  of  the  Business  Corpora- 
tions Law  of  the  State  of.  New  York,  do  hereby  certify: 
That  the  amount  of  the  capital  stock  of  said  corpora- 
tion is  Two  Million  Dollars  ($2,000,000.00),  and  that  more 
than  one-half  thereof  has  been  paid  in. 

In  Witness  Whereof,  we  have  made,  signed  and  ac- 
knowledged this  certificate  in  duplicate,  and  have  here- 
unto set  our  hands  this  25th  day  of  February,  1909. 

Charles  F.  Lomb, 
GusTAV  Erbe, 
Danl.  B.  Platt, 
John  B.  Cockrum, 

Majority  of  Directors. 


Appendix.  749 


State  of  New  York,"^ 
County  of  Monroe,    |>ss. 
City  of  Rochester.    J 

On  this  25th  day  of  February,  1909,  before  me  person- 
ally came  Carl  F.  Lomb,  Gustav  Erbe  and  Daniel  B.  Piatt, 
to  me  personally  known  and  known  to  me  to  be  the  per- 
sons described  in  and  who  executed  the  foregoing  certifi- 
cate and  severally  acknowledged  to  me  that  they  executed 
the  same. 

Helen  E.  Close, 
(seal)  Notary  Public. 

My  commission  expires  March  30,  1909. 

State  op  Indiana,       ^ 
County  of  Marion,     >ss. 
City  of  Indianapolis.  J 

On  this  1st  day  of  March,  1909,  before  me,  the  sub- 
scriber, personally  appeared  John  B.  Cockrum,  to  me 
personally  known  and  known  to  me  to  be  one  of  the  per- 
sons described  in  and  who  executed  the  foregoing  cer- 
tificate, and  he  duly  acknowledged  to  me  that  he  exe- 
cuted the  same. 

Drusie  Hinchman, 
(seal)  Notary  Public,  Marion  County,  Indiana. 

My  commission  expires  October  27,  1910. 

State  of  Indiana,  I      . 
Marion  County.     ( ^^''• 

I,  Leonard  M.  Quill,  Clerk  of  the  County  of  Marion,  in 
the  State  of  Indiana,  and  also  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court, 
within  and  for  said  County  and  State,  the  same  being  a 
court  of  record,  and  having  a  seal,  do  hereby  certify  that 
Drusie  Hinchman,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to  the  jurat 
to  the  annexed  instrument,  was  at  the  time  of  taking  such 
jurat,  to  wit:  March  1st,  1909,  an  acting  notary  public 
within  and  for  the  county  aforesaid,  duly  commissioned 
and  qualified,  and  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  State  of 
Indiana,  to  take  and  certify  the  same,  as  well  as  to  take 
and  certify  all  affidavits,  and  the  acknowledgment  and 
proof  of  deeds  or  conveyances,  and  all  other  instruments 
of  writing. 


750  Appendix. 

And  further,  that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  hand- 
writing of  said  Drusie  Hinchman  and  verily  believe  that 
the  signature  to  said  Certificate  or  Proof  of  Acknowl- 
edgment or  Jurat  is  genuine,  and  that  said  instrument  is 
executed  and  acknowledged  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  of  Indiana. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  affixed  the  seal  of  the  said  court  and  county,  at  In- 
dianapolis, Indiana,  this  6tli  day  of  Mch.,  A.  D.  1909. 

Leonaed  M.  Quill, 
(seal)  Clerk. 

State  of  New  York,  J 
County  of  Monroe,    >  ss. 
City  of  Rochester.      ) 

Carl  F.  Lomb  and  Daniel  B.  Piatt,  being  severally  duly 
sworn,  each  for  himself,  deposes  and  says :  that  he,  the 
said  Carl  F.  Lomb,  is  the  President  of  the  Empire  Vot- 
ing Machine  Company,  and  that  he,  the  said  Daniel  B. 
Piatt,  is  the  Secretary  thereof,  and  that  the  statements 
contained  in  the  foregoing  certificate  are  true. 

Carl  F.  Lomb, 
Danl.  B.  Platt. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  3rd  day  of 
March,  1909. 

Helen  E.  Close, 
(seal)  Notary  Public. 

My  commission  expires  March  30,  1909. 

(Endorsed)  Certificate  of  Payment  of  one-half  of 
Capital  Stock  of  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company. 
Dated,  February  25,  1909.  State  of  New  York,  Office  of 
Secretary  of  State.  Filed  and  recorded  Mar.  13,  1909. 
Samuel  S.  Koenig,  Secretary  of  State. 


State  of  New  York,  I 


Office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  j 


I  have  compared  the  preceding  with  the  certificate  un- 
der Section  5  of  the  Business  Corporations  Law  of  Em- 
pire Voting  Machine  Company,  filed  and  recorded  in  this 
office  on  the  13th  day  of  March,  1909,  and  do  hereby  cer- 


Appendix.  751 

tify  the  same  to  be  a  correct  transcript  therefrom  and  of 
the  whole  thereof. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  seal  of  office  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  at  the  City  of  Albany,  this  tenth  day  of  Septem- 
ber, one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirteen. 

JoSE  S.  PiDGEON, 

(seal)  Second  Deputy  Secretary  of  State. 


Empiee  Voting  Machine  Company.  Certificate  Chang- 
ing Business  Office  from  Eochestee,  New  York,  to 
Jamestown,  New  York. 

We,  the  undersigned,  being  the  President,  Secretary 
and  a  majority  of  the  directors  of  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company,  a  stock  corporation  organized  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  do  hereby  certify,  pur- 
suant to  the  provisions  of  Section  13  of  the  Stock  Cor- 
poration Law,  as  follows,  to  wit: 

That  a  duly  called  special  meeting  of  the  stockholders 
of  said  corporation  was  held  at  the  principal  office  in  the 
City  of  Rochester,  New  York,  on  the  15th  day  of  Novem- 
ber, 1910,  at  which  stockholders  owning  ten  thousand  one 
hundred  shares  of  the  stock  of  such  corporation  were 
present  in  person  or  by  proxy ; 

That  at  said  meeting  the  following  resolution  was  duly 
adopted ; 

"Resolved,  That  the  principal  office  and  place  of  busi- 
ness of  this  corporation  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is, 
changed  from  the  City  of  Rochester,  New  York,  named  in 
its  Certificate  of  Incorporation,  to  the  City  of  Jamestown 
in  the  County  of  Chautauqua,  New  York,  and  that  the 
President,  Secretary  and  directors  be  authorized,  and 
they  hereby  are  authorized  and  directed,  to  effect  such 
change  pursuant  to  law." 

We  further  certify: 

First.  That  the  name  of  said  corporation  is  Empire 
Voting  Machine  Company. 

Second.  That  its  principal  office  and  place  of  business 
was  originally,  and  is  still,  in  the  City  of  Rochester,  Coun- 
ty of  Monroe,  New  York. 

Third.  That  it  is  desired  to  change  its  said  principal 
office  and  place  of  business  to  the  City  of  Jamestown, 
County  of  Chautauqua,  New  York,  and  that  it  is  the  pur- 


752  Appendix. 

pose  of  said  corporation  to  actually  transact  and  carry  on 
its  regular  business  from  day  to  day  at  such  place. 

Fourth.  That  such  change  has  been  authorized  by  a 
vote  of  the  stockholders  of  said  corporation  at  a  special 
meeting  of  the  stockholders  called  for  that  purpose,  as 
above  set  forth. 

Fifth.  That  the  names  of  the  Directors  of  said  corpo- 
ration and  their  respective  places  of  residence  are  as 
follows,  to  wit : 

Names.  Residences. 

Carl  F.  Lomb,  Rochester,  New  York. 
Gustav  Erbe,  Rochester,  New  York. 
Daniel  B.  Piatt,  Rochester,  New  York. 
John  Condon,  Chicago,  Illinois. 
Adam  Andrew,  San  Francisco,  California. 
Ernest  H.  Tripp,  Indianapolis,  Indiana. 
John  B.  Cockrum,  Indianapolis,  Indiana. 

In  Witness  Whereof,  We  make,  sign  and  verify  this 
Certificate  in  triplicate  this  5th  day  of  December,  1910. 

Cael  F.  Lomb, 

President. 
Danl.  B.  Platt, 

Secretary. 
Cakl  F.  Lomb, 
Danl.  B.  Platt, 
Gustav  Erbe, 
Eekest  H.  Tripp, 
John  B.  Cockrum, 
A  Majority  of  Directors. 


State  of  New  York,  . 

'  ^  ss. 


:[ 


County  of  Monroe 

Carl  F.  Lomb,  Gustav  Erbe  and  Daniel  B.  Platt,  being 
duly  and  severally  sworn,  each  for  himself  deposes  and 
says:  that  he  has  read  the  foregoing  certificate  and 
knows  the  contents  thereof;  that  the  same  is  true  to  the 
best  of  his  knowledge,  information  and  belief ;  that  said 
Carl  F.  Lomb  is  the  president  of  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company,  the  corporation  mentioned  and  described 
in  said  certificate ;  that  said  Daniel  B.  Platt  is  the  Secrr'- 
tary  thereof,  and  that  said  corporation  has  seven  di- 
rectors, whose  names  and  residences  are  stated  in  said 


Appendix.  753 

certificate  and  that  deponents  and  one  other  director  con- 
stitute a  majority  of  said  Directors. 

Carl  F.  Lome, 
Danl.  B.  Platt, 

GusTAv  Eebe. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  5th  day  of  December,  1910. 

F.  W.  Peck, 
Notary  Public,  Monroe  County. 


State  of  Indiana,        \ 
County  of  Makion,      V  ss. 
City  of  Indianapolis,  j 

Ernest  H.  Tripp  and  John  B.  Cockrum,  being  duly  and 
severally  sworn,  each  for  himself  deposes  and  says:  that 
he  has  read  the  foregoing  certificate  and  knows  the  con- 
tents thereof;  that  the  same  is  true  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge,  information  and  belief;  that  Carl  F.  Lomb  is 
the  President  of  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  the 
corporation  mentioned  and  described  in  said  certificate; 
that  Daniel  B.  Platt  is  the  Secretary  thereof,  and  that 
the  said  corporation  has  seven  directors  whose  names 
and  residences  are  stated  in  said  certificate,  and  that  de- 
ponent and  two  other  directors  constitute  a  majority  of 
said  directors. 

Ernest  H.  Tripp, 
John  B.  Cockrum. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  13th  day  of  December,  1910. 

Drusie  Hinchman, 
(seal)  Notary  Public,  Marion  Co.,  Ind. 

My  commission  expires  October  27,  1914. 


State  of  Indiana,  /      , 
Marion  County,      i  ^^'^• 

I,  Leonard  M.  Quill,  Clerk  of  the  County  of  Marion,  in 
the  State  of  Indiana,  and  also  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court, 
within  and  for  said  County  and  State,  the  same  being  a 
court  of  record,  and  having  a  seal,  do  hereby  certify  that 
Drusie  Hinchman,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to  the  ac- 
knowledgment to  the  annexed  instrument,  was  at  the  time 
of  taking  such  acknowledgment,  to  wit:    December  13, 


754  Appendix. 

1910,  an  acting  notary  public  within  and  for  the  county 
aforesaid,  duly  commissioned  and  qualified,  and  author- 
ized by  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  to  take  and  cer- 
tify the  same,  as  well  as  to  take  and  certify  all  affidavits, 
and  the  acknowledgment  and  proof  or  deeds  or  convey- 
ances, and  all  other  instruments  of  writing.  And  fur- 
ther, that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  handwriting  of 
said  Drusie  Hinchman  and  verily  believe  that  the  signa- 
ture to  said  Certificate  or  Proof  of  Acknowledgment  or 
Jurat  is  genuine,  and  that  said  instrument  is  executed 
and  acknowledged  according  to  the  laws  of  the  State  of 
Indiana. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  affixed  the  seal  of  the  said  Court  and  County,  at  In- 
■   dianapolis,  Indiana,  this  16th  day  of  December,  A.  D. 
1910. 

Leonaed  M.  QuiLii, 
(seal)  Cleric. 

(Endorsed)  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company.  Cer- 
tificate changing  business  office  from  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  to 
Jamestown,  N.  Y.  Dated  December  5th,  1910.  State  of 
New  York,  Office  of  Secretary  of  State.  Filed  and  re- 
corded Dec.  22,  1910.  Samuel  S.  Koenig,  Secretary  of 
State. 


State  of  New  York,  | 

Office  of  the  Secbetaky  of  State.  ( 

I  have  compared  the  preceding  with  the  original  Cer- 
tificate of  Change  of  Location  of  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chine Company,  filed  and  recorded  in  this  office  on  the 
22nd  day  of  December,  1910,  and  do  hereby  certify  the 
same  to  be  a  correct  transcript  therefrom  and  of  the 
whole  thereof. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  seal  of  office  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  at  the  City  of  Albany,  this  tenth  day  of  Septem- 
ber, one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirteen. 

JoSE   S.  PiDGEON", 

(seal)  Second  Deputy  Secretary  of  State. 


Appendix.  755 


House  Joint  Resolution  No.  23. 
Offered  by  Mr.  Butts,  April  9,  1913. 


Whekeas,  An  Act  was  passed  by  the  43rd  General  As- 
sembly amending  the  general  election  law  of  this  State, 
entitled,  "An  Act  to  provide  for  the  use  of  voting  ma- 
chines at  elections  for  casting,  registering,  recording  and 
counting  ballots  or  votes.  Also  creating  a  board  of  vot- 
ing machine  commissioners  and  defining  its  duties." 
(Approved  May  14,  1903.    In  force  July  1,  1903.) 

Sec.  430.  Submission  of  question  of  adopting  voting 
machines — Construction  of  machine — Eequirements  spe- 
cified.] Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  the 
State  of  Illinois,  represented  in  the  General  Assembly: 
That  any  body  or  board  of  public  officials,  or  any  other 
officer  or  officers  charged  by  law  with  the  duty  of  pro- 
viding material  and  supplies  for  holding  an  election  or 
elections  in  any  city,  village,  incorporated  town,  county, 
precinct,  election  district  or  other  civil  division  of  the 
State,  may  at  any  general  or  special  election  submit  a 
proposition  to  the  qualified  voters  thereof  to  adopt  a 
voting  machine  or  voting  machines,  and  whenever  a  ma- 
jority of  the  electors  of  any  such  city,  village,  incor- 
porated town,  county,  precinct,  election  district  or  other 
civil  division  voting  upon  said  proposition  shall  have 
declared  therefor  may  purchase  or  lease  a  voting  ma- 
chine or  voting  machines  for  any  or  all  of  the  election 
precincts  for  which  he,  it  or  they  are  by  law  charged 
by  law  with  the  duty  of  providing  material  and  sup- 
plies for  holding  an  election  or  elections,  at  the  expense 
of  the  city,  village,  incorporated  town,  county,  precinct, 
election  district  or  other  civil  division  of  the  State  now 
chargeable  by  law  with  the  expenses  of  the  material  and 
supplies  for  holding  general  elections  in  such 
civil  division  or  divisions.  If  the  question  of 
using  voting  machine  or  voting  machines  be  not  sub- 
mitted to  the  voters  by  the  proper  public  of- 
ficials, a  petition  signed  by  ten  per  cent  of  the 
voters  of  any  city,  village,  incorporated  town,  county, 
precinct,  election  district,  or  other  civil  division  of  the 
State  and  addressed  to  them  at  least  60  days  before 


756  Appendix. 

any  general  election  asking  the  submission  of  the  ques- 
tion of  adopting  a  voting  machine  or  voting  machines 
shall  compel  the  submission  of  the  question  to  the  voters 
at  that  election.  Use  of  such  machines  may  be  dis- 
continued or  resubmission  of  the  question  and  a  vote  in 
favor  thereof  at  any  subsequent  election :  Provided,  and 
however,  that  no  such  voting  machine  shall  be  used,  pur- 
chased, leased  or  adopted  until  the  board  of  voting  ma- 
chine; commissioners  hereinafter  provided  for,  or  a  ma- 
jority thereof,  shall  have  made  and  filed  a  report  cer- 
tifying that  they  have  examined  such  machine;  that  it 
affords  each  elector  an  opportunity  to  vote  in  absolute 
secrecy;  that  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  a  straight 
party  ticket ;  that  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  a  ticket 
selected  in  part  from  the  nominees  of  one  party,  and 
in  part  from  the  nominees  of  any  or  all  other,  parties, 
and  in  part  from  an  independent  nomination  and  in 
pai't  of  persons  not  in  nomination  by  any  party  or  upon 
any  independent  ticket;  that  it  enables  each  elector  to 
vote  a  written  or  printed  ballot  of  his  own  selection, 
for  any  person  for  any  office  for  which  he  may  desire; 
that  it  enables  each  elector  to  vote  for  all  candidates 
for  whom  he  is  entitled  to  vote  and  prevent  him  from 
voting  for  any  candidate. for  any  office  more  than  once, 
unless  he  is  lawfully  entitled  to  cast  more  than  one  vote 
for  one  candidate  and  in  that  event  permit  him  to  cast 
only  as  many  votes  for  that  candidate  as  he  is  by  law 
entitled  and  no  more;  that  it  prevents  the  elector  from 
voting  for  more  than  one  person  for  the  same  office  un- 
less he  is  lawfully  entitled  to  vote  for  more  than  one 
person  therefor,  and  in  that  event  permits  him  to  vote 
for  as  many  persons  for  that  office  as  he  is  by  law  en- 
titled and  no  more;  and  that  such  machine  will  register 
correctly  by  means  of  exact  counters  every  vote  cast  for 
the  regular  tickets  thereon ;  and  has  the  capacity  to  con- 
tain the  tickets  of  seven  political  parties  with  the  names 
of  all  the  candidates  thereon,  together  with  all  propo- 
sitions to  be  voted  upon  except  that  it  may  be  so  con- 
structed that  the  names  of  all  candidates  for  presiden- 
tial electors  will  not  occur  thereon,  but  in  lieu  thereof 
one  ballot  label  in  each  party  column  or  row  shall  con- 
tain only  the  words  "Presidential  Electors,"  preceded 
by  the  party  name.  That  all  votes  cast  on  the  machine 
on  a  regular  ballot  or  ballots  shall  be  registered;  that 


Appendix.  757 

voters  may  by  means  of  irregular  ballots  or  otherwise 
vote  for  any  person  for  any  office,  although  such  person 
may  not  have  been  nominated  by  any  party  and  his 
name  may  not  appear  on  such  machine;  then  when  a 
vote  is  cast  for  any  person  for  any  such  office,  when 
his  name  does  not  appear  on  the  machine,  the  elector 
can  not  vote  for  any  name  on  the  machine  for  the  same 
office;  that  each  elector  can,  understandingly  and  within 
the  period  of  one  minute,  cast  his  vote  for  all  candidates 
of  his  choice ;  that  in  case  the  machine  is  so  constructed 
that  the  candidates  for  presidential  electors  of  any  party 
can  be  voted  for  only  by  voting  for  the  ballot  label  con- 
taining the  words  "Presidential  Electors,"  by  voting  an 
irregular  ticket  as  hereinafter  defined  the  elector  may 
vote  for  any  person  or  persons  he  may  choose  for  presi- 
dential electors;  that  the  machine  is  provided  with  a 
lock  or  locks  by  the  use  of  which  any  movement  of  the 
voting  or  registering  mechanism  is  absolutely  prevented 
so  that  it  can  not  be  tampered  with  or  manipulated  for 
any  fraudulent  purpose ;  that  the  machine  is  susceptible 
of  being  closed  during  the  progress  of  the  voting  so  that 
no  person  can  see  or  know  the  number  of  votes  regis- 
tered for  any  candidate:  Provided,  also,  that  no  such 
machine  or  machines  shall  be  purchased  unless  the  party 
or  parties  making  the  sale  shall  guarantee  in  writing 
to  keep  the  machine  or  machines  in  good  working  order 
for  five  years  without  additional  cost  and  shall  give  a 
sufficient  bond  conditional  to  that  effect. 

Sec.  431.  Machines  must  meet  all  requirements  spe- 
cified.] Sec.  2.  The  voting  machine  or  machines  to  be 
used,  adopted,  leased  or  purchased  as  herein  provided 
must  be  so  constructed  as  to  meet  all  requirements  spe- 
cified in  this  Act. 

Sec.  432.  Board  of  voting  machine  commissioners — 
Terms  of  office — Examination  of  machine — Eeport — Ap- 
proval— Compensation.]  Sec.  3.  The  Secretary  of 
State  and  two  persons  appointed  by  the  Governor,  who 
shall  be  mechanical  experts  and  not  members  of  the 
same  political  party,  shall  constitute  a  board  of  voting 
machine  commissioners.  Their  term  of  office  shall  be 
four  years,  except  that  the  commissioners  appointed  by 
the  Governor  shall  be  subject  to  removal  at  his  pleasure 
and  that  any  Secretary  of  State  on  surrendering  the 
duties  of  his  office  shall  be  succeeded  on  the  board  by 


758  Appendix. 

the  succeeding  Secretary  of  State.  If  the  office  of  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  any  reason  shall  become  vacant  the 
Attorney  General  of  the  State  shall  be  a  member  of  the 
board  until  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  is  filled.  No 
member  of  the  board  shall  have  any  interest  in  any  vot- 
ing machine.  Any  person  or  corporation  owning  or  be- 
ing interested  in  any  voting  machine  may  apply  to  said 
board  to  examine  such  machine  and  report  on  its  ac- 
curacy, efficiency,  capacity  and  safety.  The  commis- 
sioners shall  examine  the  machine  and  make  full  report 
thereon  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  They 
shall  state  in  the  report  whether  or  not  the  kind  of  ma- 
chine examined  complies  with  the  requirements  of  this 
Act  and  can  be  safely  used  by  voters  at  elections  under 
the  conditions  prescribed  in  this  Act.  If  the  report  be 
in  the  affirmative  upon  said  questions,  the  machine  shall 
be  deemed  approved  by  the  board  and  machines  of  its 
kind  may  be  adopted  for  use  at  elections  as  herein  pro- 
vided. When;  the  machine  has  been  so  approved  any 
improvement  or  change  that  does  not  impair  its  accur- 
acy, efficiency,  capacity  or  safety  shall  not  render  nec- 
essary a  re-examination  of  reapproval  thereof.  Any 
form  of  voting  machine  not  so  approved  can  not  be  used 
at  any  election.  Each  of  the  two  mechanical  experts  on 
the  board  shall  be  entitled  to  one  hundred  dollars  ($100) 
for  his  compensation  and  expenses  in  making  such  ex- 
amination and  report,  to  be  paid  by  the  person  or  cor- 
poration applying  for  such  examination,  which  sum  may 
be  demanded  in  advance  of  making  the  examination,  and 
which  shall  be  the  sole  compensation  to  be  received  by 
any  such  expert.  The  board  may,  if  it  consents  to  do  so, 
go  to  any  point  in  the  State  for  the  purpose  of  examining 
a  machine,  but  it  shall  not  be  compelled  to  make  such 
examination  at  any  place  other  than  the  capital  of  the 
State:  Provided,  that  each  of  the  two  commmissioners 
appointed  as  mechanical  experts  shall  not  receive  and  re- 
tain to  exceed  fifteen  hundred  dollars  ($1500)  and  rea- 
sonable expenses  in  any  one  year,  and  all  sums  collected 
for  such  examinations  over  and  above  said  maximum 
salaries  and  reasonable  expenses  shall  be  turned  into  the 
State  treasury. 

Experimental  use  permitted.]  Sec.  4.  The  authori- 
ties of  any  city,  village,  incorporated  town,  county,  pre- 
cinct, election  district  or  other  civil  division  authorized 


Appendix.  759 

by  section  1  of  this  Act  to  adopt  a  voting  machine  or 
voting  machines  may  provide  for  the  experimental  use, 
at  any  election  or  elections,  in  one  or  more  election  pre- 
cincts, of  a  machine  which  it  might  lawfully  adopt,  with- 
out a  formal  adoption  thereof,  and  its  use  at  such  elec- 
tions shall  be  as  valid  for  all  purposes  as  if  it  had  been 
lawfully  adopted. 

Sec.  434.  How  payment  for  machine  may  be  pro- 
vided for.]  Sec.  5.  The  local  authorities,  on  the  adop- 
tion and  lease  or  purchase  of  a  voting  machine  or  voting 
machines,  may  provide  for  the  payment  therefor  in  such 
manner  as  may  be  deemed  for  the  best  interest  of  the 
city,  village,  incorporated  town  or  county.  They  may 
for  that  purpose  make  leases,  issue  bonds,  certificates  of 
indebtedness,  or  other  obligations,  which  shall  be  a 
charge  on  the  city,  village,  incorporated  town  or  county. 
Such  bonds,  certificates  or  other  obligations  may  be  is- 
sued with  or  without  interest,  payable  at  such  time  or 
times  as  the  authorities  may  determine,  but  shall  not  be 
issued  or  sold  at  less  than  par. 

Sec.  435.  Election  precinct  in  which  machines  used — 
Number  of  voters — Re-division  of  precincts.]  Sec.  6. 
For  any  election  in  any  city,  village,  incorporated  town, 
county,  election  district  or  other  civil  division  in  which 
voting  machines  are  to  be  used,  the  election  precincts  in 
which  such  machines  are  to  be  used  may  be  created  by 
the  officers  charged  with  the  duty  of  creating  election 
precincts  so  as  to  contain  as  near  as  may  be  six  hundred 
votes  each.  Such  re-districting  or  re-division  shall  be 
made,  under  such  regulations  as  to  time  and  manner  as 
are  now  provided  by  law.  Thereafter,  so  long  as  voting 
machines  are  (are)  used,  no  re-division  of  such  election 
precincts  shall  be  made  until  at  some  general  election 
the  number  of  votes  cast  in  one  or  more  of  such  precincts 
shall  exceed  seven  hundred. 

Sec.  436.  Supplying  precincts  with  machine.]  Sec. 
7.  The  local  authorities  adopting  a  voting  machine  or 
voting  machines  shall,  as  soon  as  practicable  thereafter, 
provide  for  each  polling  place  a  voting  machine  in  com- 
plete working  order,  and  shall  thereafter  preserve  and 
keep  it  in  repair,  and  shall  have  the  custody  thereof,  and 
of  the  furniture  and  equipment  of  the  polling  place  when 
not  in  use  at  an  election.  If  it  shall  be  impracticable  to 
supply  each  election  precinct  with  a  voting  machine  at 


760  Appendix. 

the  election  following  such  adoption,  as  many  may  be 
supplied  as  it  is  practicable  to  procure,  and  the  same  may 
be  used  in  such  election  precinct  or  precincts  within  the 
city,  village,  incorporated  town,  county,  election  district 
or  other  civil  division,  as  the  officers  adopting  the  same 
may  direct. 

Sec.  437.  How  machines  shall  be  placed  in  room 
— One  minute  for  voting.]  Sec.  8.  The  room  in  which 
the  election  is  held  shall  have  a  railing  separating  -the 
part  of  the  room  occupied  by  the  judges  and  clerks  of 
election  from  that  part  of  the  room  occupied  by  the  vot- 
ing machine.  The  exterior  of  the  voting  machine  and 
every  part  of  the  polling  place  shall  be  in  plain  view  of 
the  election  officers.  The  voting  machine  shall  be  placed 
at  least  three  feet  from  every  wall  and  partition  of  the 
polling  place  and  at  least  four  feet  from  any  election  of- 
ficer or  table  used  by  them,  and  it  shall  be  so  placed  that 
no  person  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  railing  can  see  or 
determine  from  the  ouside  of  the  room  how  the  voter 
casts  his  vote.  After  the  opening  of  the  polls  the  elec- 
tion judges  shall  allow  no  person  to  pass  within  the  rail- 
ing to  the  part  of  the  room  where  the  machine  is  situ- 
ated, except  for  the  purpose  of  voting,  except  as  is  pro- 
vided in  the  next  succeeding  section  of  this  Act ;  and  they 
shall  not  permit  more  than  one  voter  at  a  time  to  be  in 
such  part  of  the  room.  They  shall  not  themselves  remain 
or  permit  any  other  person  to  remain  in  any  position  or 
near  any  position  that  would  permit  one  to  see  or  ascer- 
tain how  a  voter  votes  or  how  he  has  voted.  No  voter 
shall  remain  within  the  voting  booth  or  compartment 
longer  than  one  minute,  and  if  any  voter  shall  refuse  to 
leave  after  the  lapse  of  that  time,  he  shall  at  once  be  re- 
moved by  the  election  officers  or  upon  their  order. 

Sec.  438.  Where  voter  can  not  read  or  is  unable  to  use 
machine — Intoxicated  person.]  Sec.  9.  Any  voter  who 
may  declare  upon  oath  that  he  cannot  read  the  English 
language,  or  that  by  reason  of  physical  disability  he  is 
unable  to  use  the  voting  machine,  shall,  upon  request, 
be  assisted  by  two  of  the  election  officers  of  different 
parties  to  be  selected  by  the  judges  and  clerks  of  the 
precincts  in  which  they  are  to  act,  to  be  designated  by 
the  judges  of  election  at  the  opening  of  the  polls.  Such 
officers,  in  the  voter's  presence  and  in  the  presence  of 
each  other,  shall  register  his  vote  upon  the  machine  for 


Appendix.  761 

the  candidates  of  his  choice,  and  shall  thereafter  give  no 
information  regarding  the  same.  The  clerks  of  election 
.  shall  enter  upon  the  poll  list  after  the  name  of  any  elec- 
tor who  received  such  assistance  in  registering  his  vote 
a  memorandum  of  the  fact.  Intoxication  shall  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  physical  disability,  and  no  intoxicated  per- 
son shall  be  entitled  to  assistance  in  registering  his  vote. 
Sec.  439.  Where  voter  asks  for  instruction  concern- 
ing manner  of  voting.]  Sec.  10.  In  case  any  elector 
after  entering  the  voting  machine  booth  shall  ask  for 
further  instructions  concerning  the  manner  of  voting, 
two  judges  of  opposite  political  parties  shall  give  such 
instructions  to  him ;  but  no  judge  or  other  election  officer, 
or  person  assisting  an  elector,  shall  in  any  manner  re- 
quest, suggest  or  seek  to  persuade,  or  induce  any  such 
elector  to  vote  any  particular  ticket,  or  for  any  particu- 
lar candidate,  or  for  or  against  any  particular  amend- 
ment, question  or  proposition.  After  receiving  such  in- 
structions, such  elector  shall  vote  as  in  the  case  of  an  un- 

Sec.  440.  Ballot  label.]  Sec.  11.  That  portion  of 
cardboard,  paper  or  other  material,  placed  on  the  front 
of  the  machine  and  containing  the  names  of  the  candi- 
dates, or  a  statement  of  the  proposed  constitutional 
amendment  or  other  question  or  proposition  to  be  voted 
on,  shall  be  known  in  this  Act  as  a  ballot  label.  The  bal- 
lot label  shall  be  supplied  by  the  official  or  officials 
charged  by  law  with  providing  material  for  the  holding 
of  an  election  or  elections  and  shall  be  printed  in  black 
ink  on  clear  white  material  of  such  size  as  will  fit  the 
machine  and  in  plain,  clear  type,  as  large  as  the  space 
will  reasonably  permit.  The  party  name  or  other  desig- 
nation shall  be  prefixed  to  the  list  of  candidates  of  such 
party.  The  order  of  the  lists  of  candidates  of  the  sev- 
eral parties  shall  be  arranged  as  is  now  provided  by 
law,  except  that  the  lists  may  be  placed  in  horiontal  or 
vertical  columns,  which  parties  may,  if  desired,  be  di- 
vided into  parallel  and  contiguous  rows  or  columns,  and 
except  that  where  presidential  electors  are  to  be  voted 
for  at  any  election,  and  the  machine  to  be  used  will  not 
carry  the  names  of  all  candidates  for  such  electors,  then 
there  may  be  placed  on  the  ballot  label  the  words  ' '  Pres- 
idential Electors,"  under  the  name  of  each  political 
party. 


762  Appendix. 

Sec.  441.  Sample  ballot  label.]  Sec.  12.  The  officers 
or  board  charged  with  the  duty  of  providing  ballots  and 
ballot  labels  for  any  polling  place  shall  provide  therefor 
two  sample  ballot  labels,  which  shall  be  arranged  in  the 
form  of  a  diagram  showing  the  entire  front  of  the  voting 
machine  as  it  will  appear  after  official  ballot  labels  are 
arranged  for  voting  on  election  day.  Such  sample  bal- 
lot labels  shall  be  displayed  for  public  inspection  at  such 
polling  place  during  the  day  preceding  election  day. 

Sec.  442.  Four  sets  of  ballot  labels  provided — Duty 
of  officers  in  putting  machine  in  order,  etc. — Delivery  of 
machine  in  room  where  election  held — Duty  of.  judges 
and  clerks.]  Sec.  13.  Four  sets  of  ballot  labels  for  use 
in  the  voting  machine  shall  be  provided  for  each  polling 
place  for  each  election  by  the  officer  or  officers  now 
charged  by  law  with  the  duty  of  furnishing  such  election 
precincts  with  ballots.  In  such  manner  shall  be  fur- 
nished also  all  other  necessary  material  for  the  use  of 
the  voting  machines.  The  same  officer  or  officers  shall, 
before  the  day  of  election,  cause  the  proper  ballot  labels 
to  be  put  on  each  machine  corresponding  with  the  sample 
ballot  labels  herein  provided  for,  and  the  machine  in 
every  way  to  be  put  in  order,  set  and  adjusted,  ready  for 
use  in  voting  when  delivered  at  the  precinct ;  and  for  the 
purpose  of  so  labeling  the  machine,  putting  in  order,  set- 
ting and  adjusting  the  same,  they  may  employ  one  or 
more  competent  persons  and  cause  him  or  them  to  be 
paid  in  the  same  manner  as  other  election  officers  are 
paid.  And  the  same  officer  or  officers  shall  cause  the  ma- 
chine so  labeled  in  order,  set  and  adjusted  to  be  delivered 
at  the  voting  precinct,  together  with  all  necessary  fur- 
niture and  appliances  that  go  with  the  same,  in  the  room 
where  the  election  is  to  be  held  in  the  precinct,  not  later 
than  6  o'clock  p.  m.  of  the  day  preceding  the  election. 
After  the  delivery  of  the  machine  and  on  the  same  day 
the  judges  and  clerks  of  election  of  the  precinct  may 
meet  at  said  room,  open  the  package  containing  the  sam- 
ple ballots,  and  if  necessary  the  ballot  labels,  and  see 
that  the  machine  is  correctly  labeled,  set  and  adjusted 
ready  for  use  in  voting;  and  if  the  same  is  not  labeled, 
set  and  adjusted  and  in  order,  they  shall  cause  it  to  be 
done.  On  the  morning  of  the  election  the  election  of- 
ficers shall  meet  in  the  said  room  at  least  one  hour  be- 
fore the  time  for  opening  the  polls.     They  shall  see  that 


Appendix.  763 

the  sample  ballot  labels  and  instruction  cards  are  posted 
properly,  and  everything  put  in  readiness  for  the  voting 
at  the  hour  of  opening  the  polls.  The  officers  shall  com- 
pare ballot  labels  on  the  machine  with  the  sample  bal- 
lots, see  that  they  are  correct,  examine  and  see  that  all 
the  counters  in  the  machine  are  set  at  naught  or  zero 
(0)  and  that  the  machine  is  otherwise  in  perfect  order 
and  they  shall  not  thereafter  permit  the  counters  to  be 
operated  or  moved  except  by  electors  in  voting,  and  they 
shall  also  see  that  all  necessary  arrangements  and  ad- 
justments are  made  for  voting  irregular  ballots  on  the 
machine. 

Sec.  443.  Irregular  ballots.]  Sec.  14.  Ballots  voted 
for  any  person  whose  name  does  not  appear  on  the  bal- 
lot label  on  the  machine  as  a  candidate  for  office  are 
herein  referred  to  as  irregular  ballots.  In  voting  for 
presidential  electors  a  voter  may  vote  an  irregular  ticket 
made  up  of  the  names  of  persons  in  nomination  by  dif- 
ferent parties  or  partially  of  the  names  of  persons  so  in 
nomination  and  partially  of  persons  not  in  nomination 
by  any  party.  Such  irregular  ballot  shall  be  deposited, 
written  or  affixed  in  or  upon  the  receptacle  or  device 
provided  on  the  machine  for  that  purpose. 

Sec.  444.  With  close  of  polls  machine  locked  and 
counting  compartment  opened.]  See.  15.  As  soon  as 
the  polls  are  closed  the  voting  machine  shall  be  locked 
against  voting  and  the  counting  compartment  opened  in 
the  presence  of  all  the  judges  and  clerks  of  election  and 
all  other  persons  who  may  be  lawfully  within  the  room, 
giving  full  view  of  the  numbers  announcing  the  voles 
cast  for  each  candidate  and  for  and  against  the  various 
constitutional  amendments,  questions  or  other  proposi- 
tions. 

Sec.  445.  Ascertaining  number  of  votes — Written 
statements  to  be  signed  by  election  officers — Irregular 
ballots — Machine  to  be  locked  for  thirty  days.]  Sec.  16. 
The  election  officers  shall  then  ascertain  the  number  of 
votes  which  the  candidates  have  received,  both  on  the 
machine  and  by  the  voting  of  irregular  ballots,  if  any, 
and  one  of  the  judges  shall  publicly  announce  in  a  dis- 
tinct voice  the  total  vote  of  each  candidate  thus  ascer- 
tained in  the  order  of  the  offices  as  their  titles  are  ar- 
ranged on  the  ballot  label.  He  shall  then  announce  in 
the  same  manner  the  vote  on  each  constitutional  amend- 


764  Appendix. 

ment,  proposition  or  other  question.  Before  leaving 
the  room  and  before  closing  and  locking  the  counting 
compartment,  the  election  officers  shall  make  and  sign 
written  statements  or  returns  of  such  election,  as  now 
required  by  law.  When  irregular  ballots  have  been 
voted  they  shall  be  returned,  preserved  and  finally  des- 
troyed as  is  now  provided  by  law  in  the  case  of  other 
election  ballots.  The  written  statements  or  returns  so 
made,  after  having  been  properly  signed,  shall  be  dis- 
tinctly and  clearly  read  in  the  hearing  of  all  persons 
present,  and  ample  opportunity  shall  be  given  to  com- 
pare the  results  so  certified  with  the  counter  dials  of  the 
machine.  After  such  comparison  and  correction,  if  any 
such  is  made,  the  election  officers  shall  then  close  the 
counting  compartment  and  lock  the  same.  Thereafter 
the  machine  shall  remain  locked  for  a  period  of  at  least 
thirty  days  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  a  court  of  com- 
petent jurisdiction. 

Sec.  446.  Keys  to  be  returned  with  written  state- 
ment.] Sec.  17.  When  the  machine  is  locked  at  the  close 
of  an  election  in  the  manner  required  by  this  Act,  the 
judges  shall  place  all  keys  of  the  machine  on  a  single 
piece  of  flexible  wire,  unite  the  ends  of  such  wire  in  a 
firm  knot,  label  the  same  with  the  make  and  number  of 
the  machine  and  the  precinct  at  which  it  was  used  at  such 
election,  and  return  such  keys  along  with  the  written 
statement  of  returns  of  such  election. 

Sec.  447.  Where  machine  supplied  with  recording  de- 
vice.] Sec.  18.  A  voting  machine  which  possesses  all 
the  qualities  required  by  this  Act  may  be  supplied  in 
addition  with  any  recording  device  on  which  all  the  votes 
registered  on  the  mechanical  counters  will  be  separately 
recorded.  Wlien  a  machine  is  supplied  with  such  device 
the  same  shall  not  be  taken  out  or  examined  by  the  elec- 
tion officers  who  make  the  return  (returns)  from  the  pre- 
cinct, but  such  machine  shall  be  locked  with  such  device 
therein  and  so  remain  for  a  period  of  at  least  thirty 
days  unless  within  that  time  the  machine  shall  be  ordered 
open  by  some  court  of  competent  jurisdiction.  At  the 
end  of  thirty  days  such  device  may  be  taken  out  unless 
otherwise  ordered  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction. 

Sec.  448.  Penalty  for  person  tampering  with  ma- 
chine.] Sec.  19.  Any  person  not  an  election  officer  or 
other  public  officer  who  shall  tamper  or  attempt  to  tarn- 


Appendix.  765 

per  with  such  voting  machine  or  voting  machines,  or  in 
any  way  intentionally  impair  or  attempt  to  impair  its 
use,  and  any  such  person  who  shall  be  guilty  of  or  shall 
attempt  any  dishonest  practice  upon  any  such  machine, 
or  with  or  by  its  use,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  felony 
and  shall  be  punishable  by  a  fine  of  from  $100  to  $1,000, 
or  by  imprisonment  for  a  term  of  from  one  to  five  years, 
or  by  both  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Sec.  449.  Penalty  for  official  tampering,  etc.,  with 
machine.]  Sec.  20.  Any  clerk  or  judge  of  an  election 
or  any  other  public  officer  authorized  to  take  part  in  the 
holding  of  an  election  or  in  preparing  for  an  election, 
who,  with  intent  to  cause  or  permit  any  voting  machine 
to  fail  to  register  correctly  all  votes  cast  thereon;  who 
tampers  with  or  disarranges  such  machine  in  any  way, 
or  any  part  or  appliance  thereof,  or  who  causes  or  con- 
sents to  said  machine  being  used  for  voting  at  any  elec- 
tion with  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  same  is  not  in 
order,  or  not  perfectly  set  and  adjusted  so  that  it  will 
correctly  register  all  votes  cast  thereon;  or  who,  with 
the  purpose  of  defrauding  or  deceiving  any  voter  or  of 
causing  it  to  be  doubtful  for  what  ticket  or  candidate  or 
candidates  or  proposition  any  vote  is  east,  or  of  causing 
it  to  appear  on  said  machine  that  votes  east  for  one 
ticket,  candidate  or  proposition,  were  cast  for  another 
ticket,  candidate  or  proposition,  removes,  changes  or 
mutilates  any  ballot  label  on  said  machine  or  any  part 
thereof,  or  does  any  other  thing  intended  to  interfere 
with  the  validity  of  the  election,  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  felony  and  upon  conviction  shall  be  imprisoned  in 
the  State  prison  not  less  than  one  year  nor  more  than 
ten  years,  to  which  may  be  added  a  fine  not  exceeding 
$1,000. 

Sec.  450.  Penalty  for  neglect  of  duty  by  public  officer 
or  election  officer.]  Sec.  21.  Any  public  officer  or  any 
election  officer  upon  whom  any  duty  is  imposed  by  this 
Act  and  who  shall  wilfully  omit  or  neglect  to  perform 
such  duty,  or  who  shall  do  any  act  prohibited  herein  for 
which  imprisonment  is  not  otherwise  provided  herein, 
shall,  upon  conviction,  be  imprisoned  in  the  State  prison 
for  not  less  than  one  year  nor  more  than  ten  years,  or 
be  fined  in  any  sum  not  exceeding  $1,000,  or  may  be  pun- 
ished by  both  such  imprisonment  and  fine. 

Sec.  451.    Provisions  of  election  law  not  inconsistent 


766  Appendix. 

with  Act  apply.]  Sec.  22.  All  the  provisions  of  the  elec- 
tion law  not  inconsistent  with  this  Act  shall  apply  to  all 
the  elections  in  the  precincts  where  such  voting  machines 
are  used.  Any  provisions  of  law  which  conflict  with  the 
use  of  such  machine  or  machines  as  herein  set  forth  shall 
not  apply  to  the  precinct  or  precincts  in  which  an  elec- 
tion is  conducted  by  the  use  of  such  machine  or  ma- 
chines. 

Whereas,  Under  the  authority  reposed  in  them,  by  this 
statute,  the  Board  of  election  Commissioners  of  the  city 
of  Chicago  did,  in  July,  1911,  contract  to  purchase  one 
thousand  (1,000)  voting  machines  for  use  in  the  city  of 
Chicago;  and 

Whereas,  The  extreme  dissatisfaction  caused  by  their, 
the  said  Election  Commissioners'  alleged  gross  disre- 
gard for  the  provisions  of  the  foregoing  statute,  and 
their  alleged  lack  of  respect  for  the  rights  of  the  voters 
of  the  entire  State  of  Illinois,'  and  the  tax  payers  of  the 
city  of  Chicago,  in  making  said  purchase,  did  cause  an 
investigation  to  be  made  and  a  protest  to  be  filed  by  the 
"Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency"  w^ith  the  mayor 
and  aldermen  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  as  follows : 
* '  To  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  the  City  of  Chicago : 

Your  Honorable  Body  is  again  called  upon  to  take  of- 
ficial cognizance  of  the  ill-advised  and  extravagant  con- 
tract made  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  in 
July,  1911,  for  the  purchase  of  1,000  voting  machines, 
the  contract  price  of  which  amounts  in  the  aggregate 
to  $942,500.  The  election  commissioners  are  requesting 
the  council  to  include  in  its  appropriations  for  1913  an 
item  of  $282,750  to  be  used  for  the  payment  of  300  of 
these  machines.  The  first  300  machines  delivered,  the 
contract  price  of  which  was  $188,500,  have  already  been 
paid  for  under  an  appropriation  made  in  1912.  The 
remaining  500  machines  have  not  been  delivered.  If 
these  500  machines  are  delivered  and  have  to  be  paid  for 
by  the  city,  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  council  to  appro- 
priate within  the  next  two  years  a  total  of  $754,000  (in- 
cluding the  appropriation  now  sought)  for  the  purpose  of 
paying  for  voting  machines,  which  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Illinois  has  recently  decided  do  not  comply  with  the 
requirements  of  the  voting  machine  statute. 

In  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  election  commis- 
sioners, the  finance  committee  has  included  in  the  ap- 


Appendix.  767 

propriation  ordinance  submitted  to  the  council  December 
30,  1912,  the  following  item: 
"Voting  machines  and  trucks — 

300  voting  machines,  at  $942.00  each $282,750.00 

All  other  items 585.00 

Subject  to  payment  by  judgment  or  issuance 

of  certificates    $283,335.00" 

It  further  appears  from  the  ordinance  that  this  sum 
of  $283,335.00  is  not  appropriated  from  the  corporate 
fund,  but  that  it  is  "appropriated  subject  to  judgment 
or  issuance  of  certificates."  No  fund,  however,  is  des- 
ignated from  which  either  judgments  or  certificates  can 
be  paid.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  clear  in  what 
manner  the  council  intends  this  $283,335.00  shall  be  paid 
in  case  judgment  is  rendered  or  certificates  are  issued. 

In  this  connection  it  should  not  be  overlooked,  how- 
ever, that  the  contract  price  of  these  machines  is  to  be 
regarded  as  an  "expense"  incurred  by  the  election  com- 
missioners. This  is  the  view  taken  by  the  corporation 
counsel  in  his  opinion  rendered  January  29,  1912.  Sec- 
tion 1  of  Article  VII  of  the  city  election  law  provides 
that  "such  expenditures  shall  be  paid  by  the  city  treas- 
urer *  *  *  *  out  of  any  money  in  the  city  treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated."  Attention  is  directed  to  the 
fact  that  the  city's  traction  fund  is  "money  in  the  treas- 
ury not  otherwise  appropriated"  and  out  of  which  it 
is  possible  the  holders  of  voting  machine  certificates  or 
warrants  might  enforce  their  claims. 

The  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  believes  that 
the  council  should  take  notice  of  this  situation  and  should 
refuse  to  appropriate  further  for  these  machines,  which 
were  purchased  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
without  consultation  with  the  council  and  in  utter  disre- 
gard of  the  policy  of  caution  demanded  by  the  interests 
of  the  taxpaying  public. 


The  1911  Investigation  and  Repobt  op  the  Bureau. 

When  it  was  learned  in  May,  1911,  that  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  were  planning  to  make  a  con- 
tract for  the  purchase  of  voting  machines,  the  Chicago 
Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  made  an  investigation  of  the 


768  Appendix. 

subject.  This  investigation  disclosed  the  fact  that  the 
voting  machine  was  still  in  the  experimental  stage  and 
that  there  were  numerous  objections  to  the  purchase  of 
a  large  number  of  such  machines.  In  a  report  issued 
at  that  time  the  bureau  stated: 

The  Chicago  situation  presents  unusual  obstacles  to 
the  successful  use  of  voting  machines.  Among  these 
are  the  long  ballot  made  necessary  by  the  large  number 
of  offices  to  be  filled  at  some  elections ;  the  group  voting 
for  certain  offices,  such  as  judges  and  county  commis- 
sioners; and  the  system  of  cumulative  voting  for  mem- 
bers of  the  lower  house  of  the  General  Assembly,  which 
is  peculiar  to  Illinois.  The  fact  that  women  may  vote 
for  university  trustees,  but  not  for  other  officers  re- 
quires a  restrictive  device  that  introduces  additional 
complications.  The  long  ballot  necessitates  the  use  in 
Chicago  of  a  larger  and  heavier  machine  than  is  required 
in  other  cities  that  have  adopted  voting  machines.  The 
size  and  weight  of  the  machine  cause  it  to  present  prob- 
lems of  transportation,  of  storage  and  of  setting  up  in 
the  voting  booth.  There  are  special  complexities  due 
to  the  use  of  the  voting  machine  at  a  preliminary  elec- 
tion at  which  nominations  are  to  be  made  for  a  large 
number  of  offices. 

Aside  from  the  mechanical  operation  of  the  machine 
itself,  there  are  other  elements  of  uncertainty  connected 
with  the  use  of  voting  machines  that  call  for  experimen- 
tation and  caution.  It  cannot  be  told  until  the  actual  trial 
is  made  how  rapidly  the  voting  can  be  done  by  machine, 
even  assuming  the  mechanism  to  operate  perfectly  so  far 
as  all  except  the  human  element  is  concerned.  This 
bureau  learns  that  in  Minneapolis,  where  voting  machines 
are  in  use,  the  voting  has  been  so  much  slower  than  an- 
ticipated that  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  install  two 
machines  to  a  precinct  of  600  voters,  instead  of  one. 
The  Illinois  law  contemplates  a  single  machine 
to  a  precinct  of  600  voters.  Then  there  are 
the  problems  of  transportation  and  storage  and  the 
proper  setting  of  the  machines  in  the  booths.  Three  of 
these  machines  wUl  make  a  truck  load  and  it  will  require 
at  least  three  men  to  handle  one.  Skilled  persons  will 
be  required  to  set  them  up  when  taken  from  the  storage 
room  to  the  voting  booth.  It  would  seem  that  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners  ought  to  acquire  experience 


Appendix.  769 

in  handling  50  or  100  machines  before  undertaking  the 
burden  of  managing  1,200.  This  experience,  moreover, 
should  be  in  connection  with  the  most  trying'  elections, 
such  as  the  primary  of  April,  1912,  and  the  election  of 
the  following  November,  when  the  long  ballot  must  be 
voted. 

Inquiries  made  at  that  time  disclosed  the  fact  also 
that  although  the  city  of  Chicago  would  be  expected  to 
make  provision  for  paying  for  the  machines  to  be  pur- 
chased, the  financial  officers  of  the  city  had  not  been  con- 
sulted in  regard  to  the  matter  and  further  that  prior 
Boards  of  Election  Commissioners  had  secured  appro- 
priations from  the  city  council  before  taking  steps  look- 
ing to  the  purchase  of  voting  machines.  In  this  con- 
nection it  was  pointed  out  that  although  the  plans  of  the 
present  board  contemplated  the  expenditure  of  approxi- 
mately $1,000,000,  no  prior  board  had  deemed  it  wise  to 
consider  an  initial  expenditure  in  excess  of  $100,000. 

As  a  result  of  this  investigation,  it  seemed  obvious, 
in  view  of  the  difficulties  and  uncertainties  which  ex- 
isted, that  ordinary  business  prudence  demanded  a  policy 
of  experimentation  and  caution  on  the  part  of  the  elec- 
tion commissioners.  The  main  conclusions  reached  by 
the  bureau  was  summarized  in  its  report  as  follows : 

1.  The  number  of  voting  machines  to  be  purchased 
in  the  near  future  should  be  limited  to  one  hundred  at 
the  most;  and  the  purchase  of  a  greater  number  of  ma- 
chines should  be  postponed  until  after  trial  at  the  pri- 
maries of  April,  1912,  and  at  the  election  of  November, 
1912,  of  such  limited  number  of  machines. 

2.  The  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  should  seek 
to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  financial  authorities  of 
the  city  in  advance  of  action  looking  to  the  purchase  of 
voting  machines,  whatever  the  amount  involved. 

The  Contract  of  1911  and  the  Appeopriation  of  1912. 

In  the  face  of  the  situation  above  set  forth,  of  which 
they  were  fully  advised,  and  notwithstanding  the  adverse 
comments  of  the  public  press,  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Com- 
pany disregarded  every  principle  of  business  prudence, 
and  in  July,  1911,  entered  into  the  contract  mentioned 
for  the  purchase  of  1,000  machines. 

When  the  1912  appropriation  ordinance  was  before 


770  Appendix. 

the  council,  that  hody  was  asked  to  appropriate  $188,500 
for  the  payment  of  200  of  the  machines.  Wliile  the 
matter  was  still  pending,  the  bureau,  on  February  5, 
1912,  petitioned  the  council  not  to  make  any  appropria- 
tion "unless  it  (the  contract)  should  be  moditied  (1)  to 
provide  for  the  delivery  of  not  to  exceed  100  machines 
on  the  first  installment,  and  (2)  to  relieve  the  board  from 
the  obligation  to  take  1,000  machines  if  those  delivered 
on  the  first  installment  shall  not  prove  satisfactory  when 
placed  in  use."  This  suggestion  on  the  part  of  the 
bureau  was  disregarded.  The  appropriation  asked  for 
was  made  and  the  200  machines  were  delivered  and  paid 
for. 

At  the  time  the  council  was  considering  this  appro- 
priation of  $188,500,  it  had  before  it,  however,  the  opin- 
ion of  the  corporation  counsel  in  which  he  advised  that- 
it  was  "incumbent  on  the  city  of  Chicago  to  pay  the 
obligations  incurred  by  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners in  buying  such  voting  machines."  It  is  per- 
haps fair  to  assume  that  many  of  the  aldermen  voting 
for  that  appropriation  believed  it  their  duty  to  do  so 
on  the  advice  thus  given  by  the  corporation  counsel. 


The  Present  Situation. 

The  situation  at  the  present  time  differs  radically  from 
that  which  existed  in  January  and  February,  1912.  The 
corporation  counsel  in  his  opinion  then  rendered  con- 
fined himself  to  the  question  of  the  liability  of  the  city 
to  pay  the  ' '  obligations ' '  incurred  by  the  Board  of  Elec- 
tion Commissioners.  At  that  time  no  opportunity  had 
been  afforded  to  test  the  machines  at  either  a  primary 
or  a  general  election.  He  assumed  apparently  that  the 
voting  machines  contracted  for  and  to  be  delivered  would 
meet  the  requirements  of  the  voting  machine  law  and 
that,  when  such  machines  were  accepted  by  the  Board 
of  Election  Commissioners,  a  binding  obligation  would 
be  incurred. 

The  voting  machine  statute  is  explicit  on  the  point  that 
no  voting  machine  shall  be  purchased  unless  it  is  so  con- 
structed as  to  meet  all  the  requirements  specified  in  that 
act,  among  which  is  the  requirement  that  "each  elector 
can  understandingly  and  within  the  period  of  one  minute 
cast   his  vote    for  all    candidates  of  his    choice."     The 


Appendix.  771 

Board  of  Election  Commissioners  is  given  no  power  to 
purchase  any  machine  which  does  not  meet  this  require- 
ment and  it  seems  obvious  that,  if  the  board  were  to  make 
a  contract  for  a  machine  which  did  not  meet  the  above 
requirement,  the  contract  so  made  would  not  create  a 
binding  obligation  on  the  city  because  of  the  lack  of 
power  in  the  board  to  make  such  a  contract.  It  would 
seem  equally  clear  that,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  terms 
of  the  contract  made  by  the  board,  if  the  machine  itself 
when  delivered  does  not,  in  fact,  meet  the  requirements 
of  the  voting  machine  statute  ,  the  city  would  not  be 
bound.  Attention  is  called,  however,  to  the  contract 
under  which  the  machines  in  question  were  purchased. 
By  its  terms  the  company  "agrees  that  each  machine  so 
furnished  shall  in  all  respects  comply  with  all  the  re- 
quirements of  the  statutes  of  Illinois  now  in  force  relat- 
ing to  the  use  of  voting  machines." 

If  it  be  said  that  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
has  accepted  the  machines  and  in  so  doing  has  found  that 
they  meet  the  requirements  of  the  statute,  it  is  sufficient 
answer  to  say  that  the  finding  of  the  board  in  this  re- 
spect is  not  conclusive  and  that  in  the  case  of  these  par- 
ticular machines  the  board  has  only  recently  been  over- 
ruled by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State. 


The  Decision  of  the  Supkeme  Court. 

On  December  17,  1912,  the  Supreme  Court  handed 
down  an  opinion  in  the  case  of  the  People  ex  rel  Hull  v. 
Taylor  et  ah,  in  which  it  holds  that  the  voting  machines, 
for  the  payment  of  which  an  appropriation  is  now  asked, 
do  not  comply  with  the  voting  machine  statute  in  that 
they  are  not  so  constructed  that  each  elector  can  under- 
standingly,  and  within  the  period  of  one  minute,  cast  his 
vote  for  all  candidates  of  his  choice."  Moreover,  the 
decision  in  this  case  requires  the  election  commissioners 
to  furnish  ballot  boxes  and  paper  ballots  in  all  precincts. 
In  its  opinion  in  the  foregoing  case,  the  court  said : 
It  is  insisted  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  (the  elec- 
tion commissioners)  that  the  action  of  the  board  of  voting 
machine  commissioners  and  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners in  determining  that  the  voting  machines  com- 
plied with  the  requirements  of  the  law  in  this  particular 


772  Appendix. 

should  be  held  conclusive  upon  this  question;  that  the 
powers  conferred  on  these  officers  require  the  exercise 
of  judgment  and  are  discretionary  in  their  character,  and 
that  their  determination  of  the  question  of  fact  is  final. 
If  a  discretionary  power  is  exercised  so  as  to  produce  a 
manifest  injustice,  the  courts  may  interfere  to  require 
its  due  exercise  and  prevent  a  public  wrong.  *  *  * 
If  votes  cannot,  in  fact,  be  cast  upon  the  machines  with- 
in the  time  allowed  by  law,  their  use  will  result  in  some 
voters  being  deprived  of  their  votes.  Such  an  injustice, 
if  clearly  shown,  will  justify  the  interference  of  the  court 
to  afford  a  remedy  by  mandamus.  It  is  alleged  in  the 
answer  that  the  voting  machines  in  question  have  been 
in  satisfactory  use  in  various  cities  of  different  States 
for  a  number  of  years,  and  that  arrangements  have  been 
made  for  the  instruction  on  the  day  of  election,  and  be- 
fore that  day,  of  voters  in  the  use  of  the  machine.  On 
the  argument  of  the  cause  one  of  the  machines  was  pres- 
ent and  demonstrations  of  the  manner  of  its  use  were 
made  by  various  persons.  Fifty-three  officers  were  to 
be  voted  for  besides  the  presidential  electors,  and  there 
were  three  public  policy  questions  and  four  propositions 
to  issue  bonds.  There  were  party  nominations  by  six 
parties,  although  one  was  for  a  part  only,  of  the  offices. 
It  is  easy  to  vote  a  straight  party  ticket  on  the  machine. 
It  can  be  done  in  a  few  seconds.  An  expert  in  the  use 
of  the  machine  can  vote  a  split  ticket,  even  as  large  as  the 
ticket  at  the  November  election,  in  one  minute.  The  re- 
quirement of  the  statute,  however,  is  that  "each  elector 
can,  undr standingly,  and  within  the  period  of  one  minute, 
cast  his  vote  for  all  candidates  of  his  choice."  "Each 
elector"  does  not  mean  here  absolutely  every  elector,  for 
a  voter  may  be  blind  or  crippled  so  as  to  be  physically 
unable  to  use  the  machine,  and  the  statute  provides  for 
such  a  condition,  but  the  term  does  include  at  least  every 
elector  of  ordinary  intelligence  having  the  reasonable 
use  of  his  faculties  and  members.  If  the  voter  must  be 
a  trained  expert — if  he  must  be  a  man  of  more  than  or- 
dinary intelligence,  keenness  of  vision  or  alertness  of  mo- 
tion— in  order  to  be  able  to  vote  as  he  wishes  within  a 
minute,  then  the  machine  which  requires  these  things 
of  him  does  not  comply  with  the  law.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  we  find  that  the  machine  does  not  comply  with  the 
law  in  enabling  the  voter  understandingly  to  cast  his 


Appendix.  773 

vote  in  one  mintue.  It  is  not  enough  that  one  voter  or 
many  voters  can  possibly,  by  strenuous  effort,  vote  for 
the  candidates  they  desire  in  one  minute.  It  is  neces- 
sary, at  least,  that  the  average  voter  who  wishes  to  vote 
for  candidates  upon  two  or  more  or  all  of  the  various 
tickets  can  by  a  reasonable  effort  be  surely  able  to  cast 
the  vote  he  desires  to  cast,  within  the  time  allowed  him 
by  law  for  doing  so.  We  take  into  consideration  the 
action  and  finding  of  the  board  of  voting  machine  com- 
missioners and  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners 
as  well  as  our  own  observation,  and  we  are  constrained 
to  find  that  the  machines  do  not  comply  tvith  the  law  in 
respect  to  the  time  within  which  votes  can  he  cast,  and 
that  their  use,  if  voters  were  allowed  only  one  minute  to 
vote,  would  result  in  the  disfranchisement  of  many 
electors. 


Conclusion. 

In  entering  into  a  contract  for  the  purchase  and  sale 
of  1,000  voting  machines,  the  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company 
chose  to  disregard  not  only  the  interest  of  the  taxpaying 
public,  but  the  counsel  of  caution  and  the  principle  of 
ordinary  business  prudence.  They  acted  with  their  eyes 
open.  There  are  no  equities  to  be  considered  or  pre- 
served. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Ef- 
ficiency that  there  is  no  legal  liability  on  the  part  of  the 
city  to  pay  for  the  voting  machines  in  question.  The 
bureau  believes  that  any  appropriation  by  the  council 
would  not  only  be  illegal,  but  because  of  the  flagrant 
wrong  resulting  to  the  community  from  the  transaction, 
would  expose  the  members  of  the  council  to  severe 
criticism. 

The  bureau,  therefore,  respectfully  petitions  the  city 
council  not  to  make  any  appropriation  for  the  payment 
of  said  voting  machines.  It  submits  that  the  claim  of 
the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  should  not  be  rec- 
ognized by  a  contingent  appropriation  or  in  any  other 
form.  The  bureau  further  petitions  the  council  to  adopt 
an  order  directing  the  corporation   counsel    to    contest 


774  Appendix. 

vigorously  any  suit  or  proceeding  which  may  be  brought 
to  enforce  payment  for  any  of  said  machines. 
Respectfully  submitted, 
Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  ErnciENCY. 

JuLrUS    ROSENWALD, 

Chairman. 
Haeeis  S.  Keelee, 

Director. 
Chicago,  January  1,  1913;  and 

Whebeas,  It  is  alleged  that  the  State  Board  of  Voting 
Machine  Commissioners,  the  Board  of  Election  Commis- 
sioners of  the  city  of  Chicago  and  the  Empire  Voting 
Machine  Company,  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  qualify 
the  Empire  Voting  Machines,  contrary  to  the  provisions 
of  the  election  law;  and  it  is  further  alleged  that  the 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company  entered  into  a 
conspiracy  to  defraud  the  taxpayers  of  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago, of  a  sum  of  money  alleged  to  fall  little  short  of  four 
hundred  thousand  ($400,000)  dollars,  by  agreeing  to  a 
purchase  price  of  nine  hundred  and  forty-two  thousand, 
five  hundred  ($942,500)  dollars  in  the  aggregate,  to  be 
paid  to  the  Empire  Voting  Machine  Company,  by  the 
city  of  Chicago  for  the  delivery  of  one  thousand  (1,000) 
Empire  Voting  Machines,  to  the  said  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners  of  the  city  of  Chicago ;  and 

Whereas,  It  is  alleged  that  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chines can  be  manipulated  at  will  for  the  purpose  of 
fraudulent  voting,  and  are  wholly  inadequate  for  the 
uses  as  specified  in  the  statutes,  and  it  is  further  alleged 
that  after  having  been  used  and  fairly  tried  in  Omaha, 
Burlington,  Cleveland,  Denver,  Detroit,  Los  Angeles  and 
in  more  than  fifty  cities  in  New  Jersey,  these  machines 
have  been  discarded  as  inefficient,  because  wholly  unsafe, 
cumbersome  and  subject  to  fraudulent  manipulation; 
and 

Whereas,  It  is  alleged  that  there  exists  a  gigantic 
conspiracy,  engineered  by  the  shrewd  intelligence  of 
powerful  and  corrupt  influences,  to  use  the  election  ma- 
chinery of  the  city  of  Chicago,  through  and  by  the  fur- 
ther use  of  the  said  Empire  Voting  Machines,  that  in 
the  end,  city,  county.  State  and  national  elections  may 
be  absolutely  controlled  or  materially  influenced ;  and 

Whereas,  Great  scandal  has  resulted  by  these  persis- 


Appendix.  775 

tent  and  repeated  allegations  of  fraud,  directed  at  the 
election  machinery  of  the  city  of  Chicago ;  and 

Whereas,  The  city  of  Chicago  casts  approximately 
forty  (40)  per  cent  of  the  vote  of  Illinois;  the  entire 
electorate  of  this  State  stands  in  eminent  danger  of  dis- 
franchisement in  general  elections,  should  these  allega- 
tions be  true ;  and 

Whereas,  It  is  alleged  that  the  peculiar  political  and 
governmental  conditions  now  existing  in  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago and  county  of  Cook  precludes  the  possibility  of  a 
thorough  and  impartial  investigation  as  to  the  facts  by 
the  local  authorities;  and 

Whereas,  There  appears  to  be  ample  ground  for  a 
thorough,  searching,  exhaustive  and  impartial  investi- 
gation of  the  alleged  scandalous  conditions;  therefore, 
be  it 

Resolved,  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  Senate 
concurring  therein.  That  a  joint  committee  of  twelve  (12) 
shall  be  appointed,  six  (6)  to  be  named  by  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Elections  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  six  (6)  to  be  named  by  the  Senate;  that 
this  committee  be,  and  is,  hereby  authorized  and  em- 
powered to  make  searching  investigation  and  exhaustive 
examination  into  the  official  conduct  and  acts  of  the  State 
Board  of  Voting  Machine  Commissioners,  the  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  any 
and  all  of  the  official  conduct  and  acts  of  all  of  the  elec- 
tion officers  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  the  county  of 
Cook,  in  whatsoever  capacity  heretofore  or  now  em- 
ployed ;  that  this  committee  be,  and  is,  hereby  authorized 
and  empowered  to  make  searching  investigation  and  ex- 
haustive examination  into  the  contract  entered  into  be- 
tween the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the  city 
of  Chicago  or  its  agents  and  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company,  its  agents,  triistees,  assigns,  heirs  or  receivers ; 
that  this  committee  be,  and  is,  hereby  authorized  and 
empowered  to  make  searching  investigation  and  exhaus- 
tive examination  into  the  organization,  creation,  incor- 
poration or  establishment  of  the  Empire  Voting  Machine 
Company,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  identity 
of  its  stockholders,  officers,  owners,  trustees,  agents, 
heirs,  assigns  or  receivers ;  that  this  committee  be,  and  is, 
hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  make  searching  in- 
vestigation and  exhaustive  examination  into  the  work- 


776  Appendix. 

ings,  mechanism,  efficiency,  quality,  material,  manufac- 
ture, cost  and  sale  price  of  the  Empire  Voting  Ma- 
chines ;  that  this  committee  be,  and  is,  hereby  authorized 
and  empowered  to  make  searching  investigation  and  ex- 
haustive examination  of  any  and  all  matters  of  whatso- 
ever nature  referred  to,  in  the  foregoing  preamble  and 
this  resolution  proper;  that  this  committee  be  and  is 
hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  issue  subpoenas 
for  the  purpose  of  compelling  witnesses  to  attend  upon 
their  deliberations  and  compel  said  witnesses  to  answer 
their  inquiry,  and  to  issue  subpoenas  for  the  purpose 
of  compelling  the  production  into  their  hands  of  any 
and  all  books,  papers,  writings,  documents,  records,  ma- 
chines, instruments,  tools  or  whatsoever  objects,  utensils 
or  things  that  they  may  deem  necessary  to  carry  out 
the  provisions  of  this  resolution;  that  this  committee  be, 
and  is,  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  employ 
such  assistance  as  they  deem  necessary  to  carry  out  the 
provisions  of  this  resolution ;  however,  no  State  moneys, 
now  or  hereafter  appropriated  for  expense  incurred 
under  the  provisions  of  this  resolution,  shall  be  spent 
outside  the  boundaries  of  this  State,  except  that  foreign 
witnesses  coming  before  this  committee  may  be  reim- 
bursed as  to  their  actual  transportation  expenses  only, 
or  for  the  purpose  of  actual  expense  incurred  in  having 
any  depositions  taken  by  others  than  the  members  of 
this  committee,  outside  the  boundaries  of  this  State ;  and 
be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  this  committee  be  and  is  hereby  auth- 
orized  and  empowered  to  make  their  investigations  and 
examinations  to  cover  a  period,  dating  from  Januaiy  1^ 
1903,  to  and  including  the  conclusion  of  their  delibera- 
tions ;  that  this  committee  be,  and  is,  hereby  authorized, 
empowered  and  instructed  to  report  its  findings  with  its 
recommendations  to  any  special  session  of  this  General 
Assembly,  or,  and  not  later  than  the  49th  General  As- 
sembly. 


14  DAY  USE            ^™ 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subjea  to  immediate  recall. 

i 

25iMay'58DA 

UHt\r 

^^^ 11  fflsa 

15MAR'59DF 

REC'D  LD 

MAR    1       lO'^n 

mHil  ■!•       IJvia 

,  ^                                                                  General  Library 
LD  21A-50m.8,'57                               University  of  California 
(C8481sl0)476B                                               Berkeley 

iv?180431 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


